Lacerta praticola, Hversm. bl 
and 0:20—0°21-0°24 in the (12 spec.). Proportion, 
leneth of fore limb ; 7 
leneth of head and body : 0 28-0°33-0°34 in the 3 (16 spec.) 
aud 0:26— 0°29-0°31 in the 2 (12 spec.). Proportion, 
leneth of hind limb Won. Se ears 
length of head and body : O-47-0°51-0°54 in the g (16 spec.) 
and 0°40—0°45-0°49 in the 2 (12 spec.). 
Row of superciliary granules generally not much reduced, 
often complete. Occipital comparatively large, Eercrally 
broader than the interparietal, and penetrating rather widely 
hetween the parietals. Postnasal generally not reaching the 
internasal; sometimes two superposed postnasals, the upper 
small, in contact with the internasal. Masseteric shield 
large or very large, almost always in contact with the first 
supratemporal, and separated from the tyinpanic by one 
large scale or two superposed rather large temporals. 
6, seldom 7, lower labials. 6 pairs of chin-shields, the first 3 
forming a median suture. On a line between the suture of 
chin-shields and the collar, 14-77-19 gular seales (43 spec.). 
Dorsal scales comparatively narrow and elongate, rather 
strongly keeled, and imbricate ; in a transverse row across 
the middle of the body 32-37- -4J scales (43 spec.). In the 
S$ 22-25-26 (23 spec.), in the 9 26-28-30 (18 spec.), 
transverse rows of ventral plates. 
In reading the description of L. vivipara stenvlepis, Nik.* 
we could not find any character to separate this form from 
L. praticola. '\lis was confirmed on examining the type- 
specimen, a yery large 9 + offering the anomaly ‘mentioned 
above, 7. ¢ 5-6 clin-shields. By the other characters of 
scaling, aud especially the rather small masseteric shield, 
the number of superciliary granules reduced to 8 on each 
side, 1t appears asa well- sliameterized L. praticola praticola, 
which cannot be confounded with Z. vivipara. 
Recently Nikolski described a new species from Sotshi, 
L. colchica t, which seems also to be closely allied to 
L. praticola. The author was so kind as to send us the 
type-specimen for closer examination. It is a typical 
L. vivipara, Jacq., entirely agreeing with some specimens 
from the Government of Moscow used for comparison. 
LL. vivipara has never been recorded from Transcaucasia, and 
it is very doubtful that it occurs in that country ; probably 
some error has taken place in labelling this specimen. 
* ¢Herpetologia caucasica,’ Tiflis, 1918, p. 54. 
: Coll, Acad. Petr. No. 7203, from Mount I] near Vladikavkar. 
‘ Fauna of Russia, Hepiilen? i. (Petrograd, 1915). 
