414 



1 A U R I A. 



OBSERV. This genus, a dismemberment of that of GrammatopJiora, 

 was instituted by Wagler, though not adopted by all subsequent 

 writers on the subject. We are inclined to think that it is a happy 

 subdivision, since it is better understood. The acquisition of a second 

 well-marked species seems likewise to militate in favor of its adoption 

 in the scientific nomenclature. 



1. AMPHIBOLURUS MURICATUS, Wagl. 



SPEC. CHAR. A scaly, crested ridge along the middle line of the back. 

 Sides of the hind part of the head spineless. Scales of the throat 

 not hanging down, strongly carinated, as are also those of the abdo- 

 men. Sides of the body with some short, erect scales. Tail without 

 cross rows of spines upon its upper surface. Ground color fulvous, 

 maculated with black above ; pale brown beneath, unicolor. 



SYN. Lacerta muricata, SHAW, Gen. Zool. Ill, i, 1802, 211. PI. LXV, fig. 2. 



Ayama grandoculis, LACEP. in Ann. Mus. d'hist. nat. IV, 1804, 191. 



Agama muricata, BAUD. Hist. nat. Kept. Ill, 1805, 391. MERE. Tent. Syst. 

 Amph. 1820, 53. Cuv. Regn. Anim. 2d ed. II, 1829, 36. 



Agama jacksoniensis, KUHL, Beitr. zur Zool. &c. 1820, 113. GUER. Iconogr. du 

 Regn. Aniin. 1831. PI. in, fig. SCHINZ, Naturg. und Abbild. Kept. 1833, 90. 

 Tab. xxx. 



GrammatopJiora muricata, KAUP, Isis, XX, 1827, 621. GRAY, Synops. Rept. in 

 Griff. Anim. Kingd. IX, 1831, 60 ; in Grey, Journ. two Exped. Austr. II, 1841, 438 ; 

 &, Catal. Liz. Brit. Mus. 1845, 251. DUM. & BIBR. Erpet. gen. IV, 1837, 475. DUM. 

 & A. DUM. Catal. m6th. Rept. Mus. d'hist. nat. i, 1851, 100. 



Amphibolurus muricatns, WIEGM. Herp. Mexic. I, 1834, 17. WAGL. Naturl. Syst. 

 Amph. 1830, 145. FITZ. Syst. Rept. i, 1843. 84. 



The muricated Lizard, SHAW, in White, Journ. Voy. N. S. Wales, 1790, 244. PI. 



XXXI, fig. 1. 



Lizard ou Agame gros yeux, LACEP. (vide supra.) 



OBSERV. We might almost have limited ourselves to a few remarks 

 upon this species, it having been described by the various authors 

 quoted in the above synonymy, were it not that their descriptions 

 are rather incomplete. This animal appears to be so common, or at 

 least so widely spread over the Australian Isle, that most of the natu- 

 ralists and travellers who have visited that continent, have invariably 

 met with it and collected it. 



In size and general appearance, especially to American naturalists, 



