Lafasfhr. 29 



Eui^deia Sog-licira (type of L. dori;e). 6. ^ , Keren (type of L. dori.v, 

 vur. marfeusi). 7. S- Sheikh Othniau. 8. S , FA Kuliar. 9. 9, 

 El Kuliar. 



I have stated above that the femoral pores number from 5 to 16 on 

 each side — a most unusual range of variation, ■^vhich gives rise to 

 suspicion that two or m.ore species are included in this definition. 

 Bedriaga has long ago proposed to separate the specimens with 5 to 

 8 pores {L. dorui\ Bedr. = revoili, Yaill.) from those with 11 or 12 

 (L. samharica, Blauf. = longicaudafa, Reuss), but specimens with 9 or 

 10 pores have since been found to fill up the gap between the supposed 

 species, and it is now known that the pores vary between 9 and IS in 

 individuals from the same locality. The character which was thought 

 to go hand in hand with the reduced number of pores, viz. the small 

 irregular plates ou the pectoral region, lielieved to be 6 to 13 as 

 against a lower number in the specimens with 11 or 12 pores, proves 

 to be worthless, as I count from 6 to 29 in the specimens with 5 to 8 

 pores and 6 to 24 in those with 9 or more (6 to 18 in the specimens 

 from Suakin and Durrur). A.-? I have been unable to find any 

 characters either in the scaling (3r in the markings to support the 

 distinction based on the femoral pores, I must retain the species in 

 the comjirehensive sense indicated liy the above synonymy. Yet the 

 range of variation in the femoral pores is certainly restricted according 

 to localities, as shown by the series from the African littoral of the 

 Eed Sea, the inland districts of Eritrea, S.W. Arabia, and Somali- 

 laud ; and although there is no gap in the number of pores between 

 5 and 16, a tabulation of the material at my disposal shows the 

 numliers 6, 12 and 15 to be culminating points which estalilish a 

 discontinuous variation. 



