[From ‘Tar Transactions of the ZooLoarcat, Socrrry of Lonpon.’—Vol. xvir. Part 1v., October 1905.] 
IV. A Contribution to our Knowledge of the Varieties of the Wall-Lizard (Lacerta 
muralis) in Western Europe and North Africa. By G*Ag Bovnencer, PRS, 
Be Zs 
Received November 22, 1904; read February 21, 1905. 
[Puares XXII.—X XIX. and Text-figures 1-6.] 
Turrry years have now elapsed since special attention began to be paid to a 
systematic study of the variations of the Wall-Lizard of the Mediterranean basin, our 
knowledge of which has been so greatly advanced by the publications of Bedriaga, 
Fimer, Braun, Werner, and others. It is Bedriaga who, bya valuable series of papers, 
issued between 1874 and 1883, has most contributed to this advance, from the 
systematic point of view, Eimer’s researches being more of a theoretical kind, and almost 
entirely confined to Italy and Malta. And to Bedriaga also we are indebted for a 
complete summary of the state of the question in 1886, at which date appeared his 
great monograph of the genus Lacerta, published by the Senckenberg Society. Since 
that time, however, a much larger material has been examined, and this has resulted in 
new views on the definition of the races and on their mutual relationships. I have 
always been keenly interested in the question, and have missed no opportunity of adding 
to the collection in the British Museum, which is now a very imposing one, both from 
the point of view of the number of specimens and of the variety of localities. 
Of late a tendency has sprung up to greatly multiply the species and thus destroy the 
old conception of Lacerta muralis. I doubt whether such attempts will conduce to a 
better understanding of the subject, and I have often been struck by the want of 
discrimination in the selection of characters on which many of these supposed species 
are founded. Characters of form and coloration are given as distinctive which or 
examination of even moderately large series of specimens prove to be worthless, whilst 
others of greater importance have been overlooked or neglected !. The object of this 
paper is to supply detailed descriptions of the specimens in the British Museum, and by 
drawing special attention to the individual variations, which are so frequently passed 
over in systematic definitions, to furnish a sounder basis for future work. I have 
endeavoured at the same time to review the work of my predecessors, so far as I 
' Kimer, for instance, attempted to classify the variations according to the pattern of coloration and the 
shape of the head, practically neglecting everything else. His work, therefore, although extremely 
interesting and containing much that is true as regards the derivation of markings, cannot be said to have 
advanced our knowledge from the systematic and zoogeographical points of view. 
VOL. XVII.—PaktT Iv. No. 1.— October, 1905. 
Shs) 
os 
