24 LACERTAD^E. 



Not even when the present handsome species was distin- 

 guished as indigenous to this country, was it suspected that 

 the name applied to the former was erroneous as so ap- 

 plied, and still less that it might, in fact, appertain to this 

 new addition to our Fauna. 



The slender knowledge possessed by Linneus of the 

 species of Eeptilia, and his total ignorance, consequently, 

 of the value of specific characters in this class, led him to 

 include amongst the supposed varieties of his Lacerta agilis 

 several which have since been ascertained to be not speci- 

 fically only, but generically distinct ; at least, according 

 to the rigid principles of subdivision adopted by several of 

 our more distinguished modern Erpetologists. As, how- 

 ever, the typical form of his species thus named was in- 

 digenous to Sweden, for he refers in his great standard 

 work, the " Sy sterna Naturae,"" to the " Fauna Suecica" to 

 fix its identity, it only remains for us to ascertain what is 

 the common species of that country, to fix this doubtful 

 and obscure synonymy. 



It appears quite clear that neither of the two species 

 which I have before mentioned as having erroneously re- 

 ceived the name of Lacerta agilis can possibly be the one 

 originally intended by the great Swedish naturalist, as 

 neither of them appears to be indigenous to that country. 

 But it is not only highly probable, but becomes a demon- 

 strated fact, that the present species is the type of the L. 

 agilis of Linneus, when it is considered that it is a native 

 of Sweden, and that the short allusion for it is nothing 

 more in the " Fauna Suecica" is perfectly applicable to 

 it. The specific character given by Linneus both in the 

 14 Fauna Suecica" and the " Systema Naturse" is vague, 

 and equally applicable to the whole of the genus Lacerta 

 as now constituted ; but he proceeds to name two varieties 



