10. UTA 231 



large dark dorsal blotches to a plain ground color sprinkled 

 with small blue dots. 



While the distribution of the various subspecies of Uta 

 stanburiana, as indicated by Richardson and redefined by 

 Camp, will be followed here, there are on record numerous 

 localities at which specimens have been taken but not exam- 

 ined as to their subspecific status. These records are here 

 assigned to the three subspecies purely on a geographical 

 basis, each being referred to that subspecies within whose 

 range, as defined by Richardson and Camp, the locality on 

 record seems to fall. This method, of course, is open to 

 criticism, but, since there was no opportunity to examine the 

 specimens, the alternative was to omit these localities en- 

 tirely. As there is enormous individual variation and the 

 differences are only average differences, the results probably 

 would not be changed much by an actual examination of all 

 specimens. The whole group is in need of thorough study 

 and revision. Until this has been carried through, the pres- 

 ent method of treatment seems best, for the recognition of 

 these various subspecies is rendered so difficult by individ- 

 ual variation that the present arrangement must be regarded 

 as tentative. Thus, Richardson records "almost typical ele- 

 gans" from Pine Mountain near Escondido, San Diego 

 County, not far from the center of the range he assigns to 

 U. s. hesperis, and records the Utas from the San Joaquin 

 Valley as U. s. elegans whereas Camp later refers them to 

 U. s. hesperis. Adequate revision of the group will require 

 so much work that I doubt if anyone will soon undertake it 

 and carry it through thoroughly. It, therefore, seems best 

 to adopt the present method of treatment here. 



Distribution. — Uta stansburiana stansburiana, as re- 

 stricted by Richardson, occupies most of Utah, northern 

 Nevada, Mono and northern Inyo counties, California, east- 



