VARIETIES OF THE WALL-LIZARD. 185 
Specimens from Crete, of which I have examined two only (hgr. ¢ & ? ), presented 
to the British Museum by Miss Dorothy Bate, agree with the Cyclades form in the 
shape of the head and in the smooth dorsal scales, but differ in the rostral entering the 
nostril. ‘The numbers of scales and pores are here given for comparison :— 
ue 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. flo 
ue eee OU) 56 27 10 31 20-19 27 
Oa is OS 57 28 11 30 20-21 20 
Grey above, with a dark brown, light-edged lateral band; a black-and-white ocellus 
above the shoulder ; lower parts bluish (in spirit). 
More specimens are required to decide whether the Crete lizard deserves a varietal 
name. At present it cannot be identified with any variety with which I am acquainted. 
Bedriaga (op. cit. p. 216) refers it to L. muralis fusca: “ Aut Kreta kommt eine 
rubriventris mit schon ausgeprigten Linien auf den Rumpfseiten und ippig gezeich- 
netem Riicken in Gemeinschaft mit der typischen fusca vor.” 
IX SOUTHERN RUSSIA, CONSTANTINOPLE, ASIA MINOR, 
anD NORTHERN PERSIA. 
Some years ago, when dealing with the history of the so-called Lacerta depressa of 
Camerano *, I made some general remarks about the Wall-Lizards of this area, and 
distinguished the following forms as varieties :— 
Var. chalybdea Kichwald (depressa Werner). 
Var. saxicola Kversmann. 
Var. depressa Camerano (modesta Bedriaga, defilippit Boettger). 
Var. portschinskii Kessler (depressa part., Camerano). 
Var. defilippit Camerano (persica Bedriaga, depressa, part., Camerano). 
Var. rudis Bedriaga (depressa, part., Camerano). 
All these were then known to me from autopsy. ‘There remained one form, first 
described by Berthold as L. hieroglyphica, and since referred by Werner to Lacerta 
serpa, on which I could offer no opinion. 
The view I took of the division into varieties is, on the whole, confirmed by the 
descriptions, based on a larger material, since published by Prof. Méhely. I must take 
objection, however, to the manner in which reference has been made f to my publica- 
tion entitled “ On the Lacerta depressa of Camerano,” the object of which was to show 
that a number of distinct forms, varieties I called them, had been included under that 
name by Camerano and others, and I distinctly pointed out that the name depress 
should, in my opinion, be restricted to two of the specimens out of the six on which 
* PZ, 8. 1904, ii. p. 332. 
+ Ann. Mus. Hung. vii. 1909, p. 409. 
