276 Mr. A. W. E. G'Sliaughnessy on Norops auratus. 



furnishes me with yet further confinnation by stating that he 

 has lately observed a second " imperfect or perfect series of 

 larger scales between the supralabials and the eye" in -<4. 

 auratus. 



Then, again, he expressly says that the tail in his species is 

 even shorter than it is described to be by Dumeril and Bibron. 



Also " the expansion of the toes is more developed." We 

 have already seen how explicit Dr. Hallowell has been on this 

 point ; and he states, what is important, that his specimen of 

 N. auratus was received from the Garden of Plants, at Paris. 

 Prof. Peters himself has confessed that his species is probably 

 the same as this one mentioned by Dr. Hallowell, and that it 

 was determined as N. auratus from a comparison with speci- 

 mens in the Paris Museum. In the specimen of N. auratus 

 which I am now examining, the occipital plate is very small, 

 much smaller than the surrounding scales, just as it is said to 

 be m A. trojndonotus. Dumeril and Bibron say the scales 

 " qui occupent . . . I'occiput ofFrent un peu moins de longueur," 

 but do not mention a large occipital plate. 



When the specimen is not obviously immature, and the tail 

 not damaged in any way, its comparative length should at 

 least not be overlooked, as all the descriptions, including that 

 of Prof. Peters, make it a particular jjoint. 



Now N. 12-striatus is a slenderer lizard, with head more 

 depressed and pointed, the scales of the muzzle only keeled, 

 those of the rest of the head being smooth (the head is entirely 

 covered with keeled scales in auratus ; see I). & B.); tail thrice 

 the length of the body ; toes not dilated, much shorter limbs, 

 and only one series of scales between the supralabials and the 

 eye. And if these differences are not to be held sufficient in 

 Dr. Berthold's hands to establish his species, what, I would 

 ask, is there in Prof. Peters's description of tropidonotus to 

 warrant him in separating that form from N. auratus ? Con- 

 sequently, unless Prof. Peters prefers to take the mere colour- 

 description of Daudin, and set aside altogether that of Dumeril 

 and Bibron, he cannot successfully maintain that his A. tro- 

 pidonotus is different from Noi-ops auratus ^ or that the 12- 

 strtatus of Berthold is identical with it. But if he considers 

 Daudin's description sufficient to characterize one or other of 

 the species, and Avould insist upon the species so characterized 

 being the same as that of Dumeril and Bibron, then, more 

 than ever, is his Anoh's tropidonotus a Norojjs auratus, since 

 all the other characters enumerated by those writers must be 

 attributed to the species of Daudin. 



Although I have not observed any trace of a white stripe 

 in Norops aziratus, yet there may perhaps sometimes be a 



