386 Mr. G. A. Bouleno-er — Remarks on 



&" 



from any dealer in zoological specimens, -will suffice. This 

 set, I would suggest, may consist of the following skele- 

 tons : — 



1. A Gecko (any common species, such as Tarentola 

 mauritanica or Gecko verticillo.tus) ; 2, an Agamoid [Calotes 

 or Uromastix) or an Iguanoid [Iguana) ; 3, a Slow-worm 

 (Anguis fragilis) ; 4, a Varanus\ 5, an Ameiva or a Cnemi- 

 dophorus] 6, an Amplnsbtvna ; 7, a Scincoid (Chalcides ocel- 

 latus or Eumeces algeriensis, or any other common species) ; 

 8, a Chameleon. When he is acquainted with the structure 

 of these eight types he will have no difficulty in understand- 

 ing the diagnoses of the families as expressed in the Catalogue 

 of Lizards. If external characters are solely to be relied 

 upon I would ask my critic the reason why Teratoscincus 

 should not be a Scincoid (in the sense in wliich he takes 

 that family), and how a typical Teioid is to be distin- 

 guished (so far as the family characters are concerned) 

 from a Lacertoid ? Dr. Strauch is entirely mistaken in 

 the estimate he makes of the number of species which 

 have been examined by me as to their osteological charac- 

 ters, probably owing to his reckoning only the prepared 

 skeletons enumerated in the Catalogue ; and especially in the 

 case of JEIuroscalahotes I am surprised at his believing that 

 so peculiar a type should have passed without investigation 

 at my hands. I may state that JEluroscalahotes has the 

 parietal bones distinct and the vertebrae amphicoelian, and 

 that consequently he entirely spoils my family Eublepharidse, 

 a most natural association, by adding that genus to it. 



Passing to the intrinsic value of the characters employed 

 by me for classification, apart from practical considerations, 

 Dr. Strauch declares the I'esult attained to be unnatural save 

 in the points on which I have adhered to old-accepted ideas. 

 He particularly objects to the introduction of the character of 

 the shape of the clavicle in the definition of families, on the 

 ground that the organ is not present throughout the group, 

 disappearing in some of the limbless forms. I have, however, 

 in the synopsis of the families which heads the first volume 

 of the ' Catalogue,' made the restriction " clavicle present 

 whenever the limbs are developed^ As the character of the 

 clavicle is accompanied by a combination of others which 

 must be regarded as of systematic importance, it is quite 

 feasible and within the limits of scientific induction, by de- 

 riving certain degraded forms from types in which the pectoral 

 arch is fully developed, to incorporate them in the group 

 characterized by a definite form of clavicle ; in the same way 

 as the class Batrachians is usually characterized, in opposi- 



