40 Mr. G. A. Boulenger — " Zar Losung 



question is merely to determine wliicli is to be regarded as 

 the most primitive. Ontogeny, in these lizards as well as in 

 their American analogues the CnemidopJwr), indicates the 

 direction, as it is the general rule for new types of markings 

 to be ])roduced in adult males and to be then transmitted to 

 females and young *, and strong evidence, derived from other 

 features, would be needed to convince us that, as now held 

 by Mehely, "striation is not the phyletic initial form, as 

 believed by Eimer, but the phyletic terminal stage." His 

 opinion rests, in the first place, on the assumption t that 

 L. saxicola and L. chalijbdea represent the most primitive 

 forms of wall-lizards, and he now attempts to strengthen his 

 position by arguments which seem to me based on a miscon- 

 ception of the evolution of cranial characters. 



In my contribution published in 1905 J I expressed my 

 full agreement with Eimer in regarding the striated type of the 

 var. canipestris as the most primitive amon^' all thewall-lizards, 

 and I added that " we are led to regard the var. campestris 

 as the most ancient form from which the others were derived; 

 and this, I thiid<, is also supported by the structural cha- 

 racters, which differ less from what we may assume to be the 

 more normal or generalized form of Lacerta before adaptation 

 to climbing petrophilous habits had been reached." A form 

 with massive convex skull, like the var. campestris, would 

 lead through a number of almost insensible gradations, such 

 as actually exist, to tlie much flattened skull which has been 

 distinguished by Eimer as the platycephalous type in oppo- 

 sition to the pyramidocephalous. I have never been able to 

 draw a satisfactory distinction between the two types, and I 

 do not quite understand how Prof. v. Mehely manages to 

 group his " species " according to this character. In the list 

 he gives I notice that L. tiUguerta is regarded by him as 

 pyramidocephalous. In the paj)er of mine§ to which he 

 refers I have described the head of the true "Tiliguerta" 

 from Sardinia as " rather strongly depressed, the occiput quite 

 flat or even slightly concave " ; it is certainly as a rule more 



of the markings on tlie tail. In primitive striated forms, such as L. npilis, 

 L. taurica, L. campestris, the tail is frequently more or less striated or 

 " macnlato-striata," whilst in extreme reticulated forms, such as L. nxij- 

 cephala, L. sardoa, L. nigriventris, it is more or less distinctly barred. 

 Reproduced tails, if bearing any markings, are always longitudinally 

 striped. 



* This is clearly shown in the vars. campestris and scrpa. We cannot 

 imagine the reverse. 



t Ann. Mus. Hung. ii. 1901, p. .376. 



X Trans. Zool. Soc. xvii. 1905, p. 388. 



§ L. c. p. 409, pi. xxviii. fig. 7. 



