﻿18. CNEMIDOPHORUS 499 



was stated to be Tiburon Island. The original description of 

 the coloration of the young indicates that they do not repre- 

 sent the same species as the adult type specimen. Careful 

 comparison of one of the paratypes with a series of C. cata- 

 hnensis showed them to be identical. It, therefore, became 

 doubtful whether Miss Dickerson's specimens really were 

 collected on Tiburon Island. In response to my request for 

 information Mr. Karl P. Schmidt has kindly written: 



"On looking up the data in the department catalogue, I 

 find numbers 6884-85 labeled 'Lower California, received 

 Jan. 3, 1912, N. Y. Z. S.' It is therefore evident that Miss 

 Dickerson located the specimens on Tiburon Island after 

 identifying them as the young of C. disparilis, the type of 

 which really did come from Tiburon. It is therefore not at 

 all improbable that the two juveniles were really collected 

 on Santa Catalina, and sent to the museum separately from 

 the Zoological Park." 



I have had no opportunity to examine the type specimen 

 from Tiburon, and, therefore, introduce the species C. dis- 

 farilis here, although I am of the opinion that it may be 

 founded upon a specimen of C. melanostethus with abnor- 

 mally large granules on the back of the forearm. 



1 04 Cnemidophorus gularis Baird & Girard 



SONORAN WHIPTAIL LlZARD 



Plate 52 



Cnemidophorus gularis Baird & Girard, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 

 Vol. 6, 1852, p. 128 (type locality, Indianola and San Pedro 

 River, Texas); Baird & Girard, Marcy's Explor. Red River, 

 1854, p. 210; Hallowell, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1856, p. 

 239; Baird, U. S. Mex. Bound. Surv., Vol. II, 1859, p. 11, pi. 34, 

 figs. 1-6; Baird, Rept. Pac. R. R. Surv., Vol. X, 1859, p. 38; Cope, 

 Amer. Naturalist, 1891 (1892), Vol. XXV, p. 1135; Van Denburgh, 

 Proc. Cal. Acad. Sci., Ser. 2, Vol. 6, 1896, p. 342; Van Denburgh, 

 Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila. 1897, p. 463; Stejneger, Proc. U. S. 



