Dr. A. Straucli's Catalogue of Geckos. 385 



dekkende scliubben, bedekt zijn. Zij bewoont de zandige 

 oevers der Ili-rivier, ten oosten van Turkestan." 



Dr. Straucli's contribution is preceded by a lengthy intro- 

 duction, in which he reviews the recently-published ' Cata- 

 logue of Lizards ' in the British Museum. After some 

 flattering remarks on the general character of the work, by 

 which, coming from so high an authority, I feel much 

 honoured, an attaque en r'^gle is directed against the classifi- 

 cation which I have proposed. I can well understand that 

 the principles which have guided me in the formation of the 

 primary groups of the order Lacertilia do not meet with Dr. 

 Straucli's approval. The celebrated Russian herpetologist 

 has always been averse to the introduction into systematic 

 zoology of any but purely external characters. But this does 

 not meet the requirements of modern science. In this case 

 he again proposes to revert to the classification of Wiegmann 

 and Dunieril and Bibron. It would occupy too much space 

 were I to discuss all the points in which we differ as to the 

 relationships of Lizards, and it must be left to those who 

 devote themselves to a study of that order, not based merely 

 on epidermic characters, to judge which of Dr. Straucli's 

 or my views on the classification is the nearest approach to 

 nature. But there are some points in Dr. Straucli's criticism 

 which I cannot leave unanswered. 



First of all, objection is made from a purely practical point 

 of view to the introduction of osteological characters in classi- 

 fication. IIow is the family to which a specimen belongs to be 

 determined without injuring or partly destroying it? How is 

 a beginner to find out to which group any given specimen is 

 to be referred ? Now I have already remarked, in my intro- 

 duction to the ' Catalogue of Batrachia,' that a specimen need 

 not be sacrificed to make out the few osteological characters 

 which seem to be of systematic value. A few slits, made 

 here and there with a little skill, are usually quite sufficient 

 for the purpose. By simply feeling with the finger on a 

 complete specimen it is, in most cases, easy with a little 

 experience to make out the presence or absence of a bony 

 supratemporal roof, of postorbital and supratemporal arches, 

 of bony dermal scutes, or of a supraorbital bone (which latter 

 character appears to have so greatly puzzled Dr. Strauch in 

 the case of the genus Tarentola). Nor do I consider that 

 classifications are made for the convenience of beginners. 

 Before engaging in systematic work a beginner must make 

 himself acquainted with the elements of Lacertilian osteology. 

 For this purpose a set of eight skeletons, which he will find 

 in any museum, or can easily have prepared, or can procure 



