Lizards allied to Lacerta muralis. 2-49 



These are after all only matters of opinion, based on 

 theoretical conceptions, but I must enter a protest against the 

 manner in which the author has changed his definitions of 

 the primary groups into which he divides the Wall-Lizards, 

 without even alluding to the position previously taken up by 

 him and which I showed to be untenable. Thus, in his first 

 paper, to which I replied, he-, laid great stress on the shape of 

 the skull, whether platycephalous or pyramidocephalous, for 

 the grouping of species, and although admitting that a number 

 of forms did not fit absolutely in his definition of the two 

 groups, a definition which is too long for me to reproduce here, 

 he placed in the former, as " rein platycephale Arten," 

 L. sa.vicola, L. caucasica, L. derjugini, L. liorvathi, L. mosor- 

 ensis, L. oxycephala, and L. hispanica ; and in the latter, as 

 "rein pyramidocephal," L. tiliguerta, L.jiumana, L. ionica, 

 L. peloponnesiaca, L. lilfordi, L. taurica, and L.jacksonii. 

 As forms not agreeing completely with the definition of 

 either, as taking a " Mittelstellung," L. anatolica, L. dan- 

 fordi, L. grceca, L. reticulata (bedriagce), L. Iwvis, L. muralis, 

 L.praticola, L.vivipara, and L. boettgeri. I then expressed the 

 opinion that such an arrangement was most arbitrary, pointing 

 out that the figures of two extreme types of skulls, which were 

 selected to accompany Prof. v. Mehely's paper, conveyed a false 

 impression of the real state of things in this genus, and 

 observing that I could easily lay out a series that would to 

 such an extent bridge over the differences as to show of how 

 little practical value they are for the definition of species. I 

 think all who will compare the two figures given by Prof. v. 

 Mdhely in his first contribution with the series depicted in 

 the paper with which I am now dealing will admit that my 

 objections are fully borne out. I wish particularly to request 

 a comparison of figs. 1 and 3 on pi. iii. of the first paper, 

 representing a " rein platycephal " type, with figs. 5 and 6* 

 on pi. xiv. and of the figure on pi. xvii. (representing three 

 skulls of the same species) of the latest paper, in view of the 

 criticism I offered as to the division into platycephalous and 

 pyramidocephalous forms. But now all is changed. The 

 definition of the AjchaeolacertEe, which barbarous name 

 replaces to some extent that of the platycephalous group, 

 contains nothing more than a vague and inaccurate allusion 

 to the shape of the skull ; the large size of the nasal apertures, 

 and other cranial characters, with the exception of the supra- 

 ocular fontanelle, which were formerly regarded as diagnostic 

 of the groups, are now used merely to define so-called species. 

 It will also be noticed that one of the species (L. hispanica) 

 formerly included among the " rein platycephal " no longer 

 Ann. & Mag. N. IJist. Ser. 8. Vol. v. 18 



