Laceita praticola, Eversm. 31 



and ():20-Oj/-0-24 in the ? (12 spec). Proportion, 

 l«i>rth of fore limb « ^„ «... 



n:.^th^f he.ui, uulbo,ly^ 38-0M3-()-34 iM the S (16 spec.) 

 and ()-2G-0-^9-()'31 in tiie ? (12 s|)cc.). Proportion, 



lontrtli uf hind limb .-. .-, ^-, • i - /,^ 



-n:i7^iCofbeadandbudv^ 0-47-0-5 /-Q-o 1 in the c? (16 spec.) 



and 0-40-0- J.7-()- 19 in the ? (12 spec). 



How of sitperrilinrif granules generally not much reduced, 

 often complete. Ocrijiittil eoniparatively lai-jje, generally 

 broader than the interparietal, and penetrating rather widely 

 between the parietals. Postnasal generally not reaching the 

 internasal ; sonietiines two saper|)osed postnasals, the npper 

 small, in contact with the internasal. Masseteric shitld 

 large or very large, almost always in contact with the first 

 sn|)ratemporal, and se|)arated from the tympanic by one 

 large scale or two superposed rather large temporals. 

 6, seldom 7, loiver labials. 6 pairs of chin-shields, the first 3 

 forming a medi in suture. On a line between the suture of 

 chin-shields and the collar, W-fi-VJ yular scales (13 spec). 

 Dorsal scales coinpaiatively narrow and elongate, rather 

 strongly keeled, and imbricate ; in a transverse row across 

 tlie middle of tlie body 32-J7— 11 scales (48 spec). In the 

 cJ 22-25-26 (23 spec*.), in the ? 26-2&-30 (18 spec), 

 transverse rows of ventral plates. 



In reading the description of L. rivipara stentjlepis, Nik.*, 

 we could not find any character to separate this form from 

 L. praticola. 'Ibis was confirmed on examining the type- 

 sj)ecimen, a very large ? f offering the anomaly mentioned 

 above, i. e 5-6 chin-shields. By the other characters of 

 scaling, and especially the rather small masseteric shield, 

 the number of supcrcili.'iry granules reduced to 3 on each 

 side, it Mj)pears as a well-clutracterizcd L. praticola praticola, 

 ■which cannot be confound(;d with L. vivipara. 



Recently Nikolski described a new species from Sotshi, 

 L. cdlchica X, whicb seems also to be closely allit d to 

 L. pralicula. The author was so kind as to send us the 

 type-specimen for closer examination. It is a typical 

 L. vivijnira, Jacq., entirt ly agreeing with some specimens 

 fi(»m the Government of Moscow used for comparison. 

 L. vivijiara has never been recorded from Transcaucasia, and 

 it is \ery doubtful that it occurs in that country ; probably 

 some error has taken place in labelling thj^ specimen. 



• ' IIcrptt<)lf>>ria cniicnsicn,' Tiliis, liM.3, p. HJ. 



+ Coll. .\cnd. Pftr. No. 7lM)."{, from .Mount II lunr V'lndiliavknr. 



I ' l-'auim of ]{u!^^i», lUptiks,' i. (IVtiogrud, I'Jlo). 



