STEJNEGER : BATRACHIANS AND REPTILES. 221 



Oefvers. Vet. Akak. Foerh. Stockholm, 1898, No. 7, p. 461 (Puerto 



Madryn, Chubut, Patagonia). 

 1857. Eulceinits affiiiisQv^K^D, Proc. Phila. Acad., 1857 (p. 198) ; Herpet. 



U. S. Expl. Exped., 1858, p. 365 (type localities, Port Desire and 



Santa Cruz, Patagonia; based on Bell's description). 

 1888. LiolcEmus nielanops Burmeister, Anal. Mus. Nac. Buenos Aires, 



III, p. 252 (type locality, Quele-Cura, Patagonia). 

 The eleven specimens brought home by Mr. Hatcher were probably 

 collected in the same neighborhood " among incense bushes in warm, 

 sandy, well-protected places" "north of the Santa Cruz river." This 

 species therefore in all probability does not extend southward beyond the 

 river mentioned. 



The majority of the specimens have no azygos frontal, but on the con- 

 trary a well-developed double row of shields between the orbits. The 

 inner row of supraocular shields in most specimens is greatly enlarged 

 transversely ; in a few specimens, however, they are but slightly differen- 

 tiated from the others. The postfemoral patch of enlarged scales varies 

 considerably in size and development, but is always present. The colora- 

 tion is quite characteristic, viz., olive above with ill-defined rusty spots ; 

 the extent of the black on the underside is variable, but there is always 

 at least a large black patch on the underside of the neck. 



DiPLOL/EMUS bibronii Bell. 



1843. Diplolcemus bibroiiii Bell, Zool. Beagle, Rept., p. 21, pi. xi (type 

 locality. Port Desire, Patagonia; types in Brit. Mus.; Darwin, col- 

 lector). — DuM^RiL, Cat. Meth. Rept. Mus. Paris, I, 1851, p. 68 (Port 

 Desire). 

 1882. DiplolcBuius daywinii Boulenger, Cat. Liz. Brit. Mus., II, p. 126 

 (part : types) (not of Bell). — Andersson, Oefvers. Vet. Akad. Foerh. 

 Stockholm, 1898, No. 7, p. 460 (part: Santa Cruz, Patagonia). 

 Boulenger has united Bell's D. bibronii and D. darwinii without giving 

 his reasons for so doing. The large series at hand seems to prove con- 

 clusively, however, that we have to do with two distinct though very sim- 

 ilar species. The differences are quite marked both in scutellation and 

 coloration, and males and females, adults and young are equally well 

 characterized. As the series consists of 27 specimens it must be consid- 



