250 



Mr. G. A. Boulenger on the 



appears among them, and is intended, I infer, to be dealt 

 with under the Neolacertae, which corresponds on the whole 

 to the pyramidocephalous forms of Mehely's first paper. But 

 not a woid occurs to explain this extraordinary contradiction. 



I will now give a translation of the new definition of the 

 group Archseolacertse, appending a number to each character 

 in order to facilitate criticism : — 



" Oxy-platycephalous forms (1), in which the outer border 

 of the parietal shield is more or less emarginate by a wedge- 

 shaped first supratemporal (2). Between the supraoculars 

 and the supraciliary mostly a complete row of granules (3). 

 The suture between the first and second supraciliaries vertical 

 to the supraciliary arch (4). Caudal scales forming alter- 

 nately long and short verticils (5). A distinct sensory pit on 

 the hind border of each upper caudal scale (6). Lamina 

 supiaciliaris (supraocular osteo-dermal plates) usually with a 

 membranous fontanelle (7). Livery mostly reticulate (8)." 



What are these characters worth ? Not one of them can be 

 regarded as distinctive of the group Archaeolacertae as opposed 

 to the Neolacertae, as I will show. 



Fig. 1. 



Heads of La cert a muralis, var. campestris (A), from Sanse°r> Island, 

 and L. muralis, f. typica (B), from Voslau, near Vienna. 



(1) By " oxy-platycephalous " is evidently meant a pointed 

 snout and a very flat head. Now L. horvathi (Archaeo- 

 lacerta) has a broader blunter snout than an average typical 

 I j. muralis (Neolacerta) and the heads of L. danfordi and 

 derjugini (Archa'olacerta?) are less flattened than those of 

 many Neolacert*e (L. muralis typ., L. tiliguerta, L. hisjiartica, 

 &c). 



(2) I append a figure of a head of a L. muralis, var. eam- 

 pestris, from Sansego Island, Istria, to show that some Neo- 

 lacertie may agree with the definition of the Archajolacerta?, 



