Occasional Papers of the Miiseimi of Zoology 3 



is very constant, no sexual dififerences being apparent, and the 

 series of granules on the inner margin of the supraoculars ends 

 in every specimen but one at the posterior corner of the second 

 supraocular, while in the exception the series on one side fails 

 to reach that scute. It is quite evident that these specimens 

 are not to be referred to A. bifronfata, and, except that the 

 scaly portion of the tongue is not arrow-headed, they corre- 

 spond so closely to the detailed description and figures of 

 Ciieiiiidoplionis diz'isns that one cannot but believe that they 

 represent the same form. 



From the study of the Santa Marta material the writer has 

 thus been led to conclude, first, with Fischer, that the females 

 described by Cope were probably not incorrectly labeled as he 

 supposed but actually came from Colombia and represent a 

 different species, and, second, as suspected by Boulenger, that 

 Fischer was in error in referring the Colombian form to the 

 genus Cnemidophorus. Indeed there is good reason to believe 

 that it was the males examined by Cope that were incorrectly 

 labeled. Reinhardt and Luetkin,' as has been pointed out to 

 me by Dr. Stejneger, ciuestioned this locality as early as 1863, 

 and it seems that no specimens have since been recorded from 

 the island. It is highly probable that Ameira bifronfata does 

 not occur on St. Thomas but is a \'enezuelan form that is 

 represented in Colombia by Aniei^'a diz'isus (Fischer). 



^ Vidensk. Meddel. Xatinhist. Foren. CCopenhageii), 1862, pp. i68-i6g. I am 

 indebted to Mr. Thomas Barbour for transcripts of the original description of 

 Cnemidophorus divisus and the references to .\meiva bifrontata by Reinhardt and 

 Luetkin. 



