340 Laceriidie. 



E. argus. Subocular uot reaching the hibial margin ; frontal shorter 

 than or as long as the greatest width of the two frontoparietals ; tail 

 short, at most IJ times as long as head and body. Brow^n above, 

 with numerous oblong oval light ocelhxr spots in longitudinal series, 

 mostly incompletely surrounded with dark brown and transversely 

 connected by dark brown spots. 



E. hrenchleiji. Subocular reaching the labial margin ; frontal longer 

 than the greatest width of the two frontoparietals ; tail long, more 

 than 1 .J times head and body. Dorsal region with or without dark 

 spots, sides with two series of light ocelli, of which the lower is 

 replaced by a light streak. 



Although fultilling its purpose in most cases, this comparative 

 definition may l>e misleading in others. Bedriaga has himselt stated 

 in his detailed description that one of the .specimens oi E. arcjus '\\i 

 the Petrograd Museum has the sul)ocular as inE. brenchleyi, for which 

 reason Strauch hai] previously referred it to the latter. There are 

 other exceptions : two specimens from Pekin and Aisun, in the British 

 Museum, and, I believe, others in the Genoa Museum, combine the 

 subocular of E. hrenchleyl with the ocellated back of E. argus* I 

 have come across several specimens! of E. argus in which the length 

 of the frontal is gi'eater than the width of the frontoparietals. 



The tail in the type of E. brenchleyi is not quite 1^ times the length 

 of head and body, whilst it may be l-^ times in E. argtis. Bedriaga 

 mentions, it is true, specimens of the former with the tail nearly twice 

 as long as head and body, a length greater than in any vi the 

 specimens I have been able to examine ; but the fact nevertheless 

 remains that the wording of his definition would be misleading as 

 regards the British Museum collection. In examining the coloration 

 of a large number of E. argus, I have noticed exceptional examples, 

 from Cliefoo, which would fall under the definition of E. brenchleyi. 



Having disposed of these characters, I will pass (Ui to two others 

 which have been pointed out by Bedriaga in his full descriptions. 

 First, the head of E. brenchleyi is more flattened, with the snout more 

 pointed. This is true generally speaking, but some E. argus have the 

 snout less obtuse than others, and the convexitv of the head is also 

 subject to some variation, the extremes between the two supposed 

 species being no greater than between individuals united by me under 

 Lacerta taurica; the comparison with L. agilis and L. mumlis is au 

 exaggeration for which Boettger is' responsible. I may add that there 



* These specimens have TjS and 61 scales across the body respectively, 

 t 5 from Chefoo, 3 from Pekin, 2 from Chih Feng", 1 from N. China, 1 from 

 N.E. Mongolia. 



