14 



- This could in fact be Hemidactylus Jrenattts Dumeril & Bibron, 1 836, a cosmopolitan 

 Asian species, as Smith stated on page A-5; '"As I never ohtaineJ an nidivtJiial of this 

 species, I give it, as an inhabitant of Southern Africa, upon the authority of the late M. 

 Delalande, who forMarded specimens, from the Cape, to the Paris Museum." . It is difficult 

 to take any reasonable guess as to the true origin of Delalande's specimens The listing of 

 localities, or rather regions, by Dumeril & Bibron (1836: 367) includes Delalande's 

 specimens {"'Delalande nous I 'a rapportee du Cap"), and they also indicate Southern 

 Africa {"'Cette espece hahite I'Afrique australe, ..."), but one cannot but wonder whether 

 their type series really consisted of //.^£?//ar?/.v throughout Although Wermuth (1965: 75) 

 states under '"Verhreitung', 'Siidafrikanische Union (eingefiihrt)", 1 would not know of 

 any published record from South Africa, let alone an established population. 



It is noteworthy in this connection that Smith obviously never acquired any 

 specimens of//, mahouia confirming that this species has indeed invaded South Africa 

 from the north only recently (compare Douglas 1990). 



- Storr (1971, not seen, cit. fide Cogger 1983: 176) considered this taxon a nomen 

 ohlitum, and the name has in fact never been used for this Australian scincid lizard For 

 reasons of stability one should continue to refer to it as Lerista pracpedita (Boulenger, 

 1887) which, in itself is a substitute name for the preoccupied Soridia lineata Gray, 1839. 



1 2 



- Smith's statement on page A-23: ""Inhabits the country to the eastward of the Cape 

 Colony, more particularly the districts in the neighbourhood of l^ort Nalar, the latter being 

 the Durban area, suggests that most of his material consisted of what is today considered 

 Tomopterna cryptotis (Boulenger, 1907), see Passmore & Carruthers (1995) for 

 distribution maps 



■ - It appears from Smith's brief obituary on Gabriel Bibron on page ( 1 62) that his original 

 intention was to name this species inornatus, but later changed his mind and dedicated it 

 to Bibron. Although the etymology was included in the descriptive text, the headers of the 

 respective pages, i e (160) through (162), the chapter heading, i e the species name, and 

 even the index were never adjusted Only plate 71 shows the ndLvnt Atractaspis bibronii. 



- described as a subgenus and in a footnote 



- While on page (75) reference is made to plate 41 figure 1, it is in fact figure 2 that 

 shows G. stibtessellatus. The same is true, vice versa, for G. sepiformis on page (77) where 

 fig. 2 is indicated, but fig. 1 is meant. The captions on the plate are correct, however, and 

 it should be noted that the upper figure is numbered 2 and the lower 1 . 



- described in a footnote 



17 



- Although the diagnosis (in a footnote) states ""Ch. Subgen." there is no generic 



allocation so that, in fact, it is the description of a genus. 

 18 



- Figure 2 is the upper of the two. 



