Lacerta. 



17S 



Bulgaria : 



^ C. Bulgaria, W.C 

 ,, Teteveu 



„ Panagiurista 



,, Rutshuk 



? „ W.C. 



GrREECE : 



(^ Macedonia (type of L 



riveti), P.M. 

 ,, L. Stymphalos 

 „ Pentelikon, nr. Athens 

 „ Crete .... 

 9 



1. 2. 3. 



60 52 24 



61 54 24 

 58 55 25 

 55 52 23 

 55 53 25 

 54 52 26 



4. 



6. 



9 26 19-20 26 



9 25 19-20 25 



8 28 21-22 25 



8 26 20 23 



9 24 18-19 24 

 9 29 19-18 23 



57 53 28 10 24 22-20 27 



65 54 26 11 24 20-19 28 



63 54 24 9 24 22-24 27 



48 60 27 10 31 20 26 



57 58 28 11 31 20-21 22 



1. Length from snout to vent (in millimetres). 2. Scales across middle of 

 body. 3. Transverse series of ventral plates. 4. Collar plates. 5. Gular scales 

 in a longitudinal series. 6. Femoral pores (right and left). 7. Lamellar scales 

 under fourth toe. 



Hahitat. — Central Europe as far north as Normandy and Jersey, 

 the Meuse, Ehine, and Danube systems ; Northern and Central Spain, 

 Italy (only a few localities in the Peninsula), Balkan Peninsula. 

 Reaches the altitude of 2000 metres in the Alps, 1500 metises in 

 the Pyrenees, 1200 metres in Bosnia. 



The Varieties of Lacerta muralis. 



The polymorphism of this widely distributed species is probably 

 exceeded by no other in the Class Eeptilia. Some of the Southern 

 forms which I regard as varieties or subspecies are so different in 

 form, lepidosis, and coloration from the L. muralis of Central Europe 

 that it is no wonder they should have been considered as worthy of 

 specific rank by many authors who attempted to define them by 

 characters which do not hold when tested on large series of specimens, 

 as the detailed descriptions here given will show. 



All the forms are so intimately linked that I feel bound to adhere 

 to the view I have always held that they should be united under the 

 comprehensive name of L. muralis/' Even the definition of them as 



* In this respect I have the support of Prof. Giglio-Tos (L'Autosterie, Arch. 

 Entwmech. xxx, 1909, p. 53), according to whose views specific distinction 

 resolves itself essentially into a question of gametic correspondence, the male 



