1886.] MR. BOULENGER ON A NEW IGUANOID LIZARD. 241 
5. Description of a new Iguanoid Lizard living in the 
Society’s Gardens. By G. A. Bouteneer., F.ZS8. 
[Received April 6, 1886.] 
(Plate XXIII.) 
Amongst the recent additions to the Society’s living collection of 
Reptiles is an example of Lizard of the genus Ctenosawra, which 
the Secretary has requested me to determine. It belongs to an 
undescribed species, which I propose to call 
CTENOSAURA ERYTHROMELAS, sp.n. (Plate XXIII.) 
Body a little depressed. A slight indication of a dorso-nuchal 
crest. Scales on posterior part of back a little larger than ventrals, 
rhomboidal, indistinctly keeled. Upper surface of hind limbs with 
large spinose scales. ‘Tail shorter than head and body, much de- 
pressed, except quite at the end; its upper surface with transverse 
series of very large, subequal spines, directed wpwards and back- 
wards, alternating with series of very small scales; the series of 
small scales inconspicuous, at first glance, on the anterior half of 
the tail» lower surface of tail with smaller pointed keeled scales, 
the number of transverse series being the same as on the upper 
surface. ight femoral pores on each side. Blackish olive above, 
with a large patch of vermilion-red on each side of the body, and 
variegations of the same colour on the sides of the head and neck ; 
lower surfaces grey, throat marbled with red; three oblique black 
bands on each side behind the fore limb; two black bands across 
the humerus. Tympanum yellowish. Iris golden. 
Length from snout to vent 100 millim., head 24, tail 88. 
The locality of the single specimen, acquired by purchase of Mr. 
W. Cross of Liverpool on the 3rd inst., is not known. 
This new species again lessens the gap between the genera Cteno- 
saura and Cachryx. I therefore propose to unite the two genera. 
In connection with this subject I must draw attention to an extra- 
ordinary statement to be found in one of Prof. Cope’s latest papers’. 
He remarks :—“ This genus (Cachryz, Cope) is of the type of Cteno- 
saura, differing only in the characters of its tail. It lacks the ter- 
minal portion, which is in that and other genera free from spinous 
seales. It is not in my opinion allied to Urocentron or Hoplocercus, 
as suggested by Bocourt, genera which belong to the terrestrial 
division of the family, or Humivage.”’ Mr. Cope not only omits 
to add that I was the first to assign his genus to the correct place in 
the system, but forgets that he is himself responsible for the error 
now corrected, and not M. Bocourt, who simply endorsed his 
views; for on referring to Cope’s original (and unique) account 
of Cachryx* we read, ‘This genus is allied to Urocentrum and 
Hoplurus, ut differs in the possession of femoral pores.” 
1 Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. 1885 (1886), p. 270. 
2 Proc. Acad. Philad. 1866, p. 124. 
