1898.] MR. STA>^LEX S. FLOWER OS A GECKO FROM PEIfAIfG. 455 



5. On the Identification of a Gecko from Penang. 

 By Stanley S. Flower^ 5th Fusiliers, F.Z.S. 



[Eeceived May 3, 1898.] 

 GOXATODES AFFIIflS. 



Cyrtodactylus affinis, Stol. Journ. As. Soc. Bang, xxxix. 1870, 

 p. 167, pi. X. fig. 1. 



Gymnodacti/Ius affinis, Boul. Cat. Liz. i. p. 42 ; S. Flower, 

 P. Z. S. 1896, p. 862. 



Gonatodes penangensis, S. Flower, P. Z. S. 1896, p. 863, pi. xliv. 

 fig-1. 



In Stoliczka's figure of Cyrtodactijlus affinis the pupil is 

 represented as vertical, hut in his description no mention is 

 made o£ its shape ; taking this figure as correct, the Gecko should 

 be placed in the genus Gymnodactylus ; but the figure being 

 evidently drawn from a preserved specimen I consider it probable 

 that the vertical pupil may be an addition of the artist, the eye in 

 the original specimen being possibly in a bad state. I described 

 Gonatodes penang ensiswitho-at&ouhtmg the correctness of Stoliczka's 

 figure, but since then careful search both by day and night in the 

 locaHty, Penang Hill, has only shown two species belonging to this 

 section of the Geckouidae — one Gymnodactylus pidchellus, which is 

 quite distinct ; the other Gonatodes penange^isis, which now on 

 comparing with Stoliczka's original description and figure I have 

 no doubt is his Cyrtodactylus affinis, the only discrepancy being 

 the above-mentioned vertical pupil. C. affinis was described from 

 a single specimen, a female, as Stoliczka mentions, there being no 

 praeanal or femoral pores ; G. penangensis was described from five 

 specimens (three S , one 5 , and one young), since then I have 

 examined nine more (six d" and three 2 ) and seen many others. 

 The name should thus stand. as Gonatodes affinis (Stol.). 



Stoliczka says " shields of head small, those in front slightly 

 enlarged and flattened," this character is not very noticeable ; 

 " a small shield above each nostril but not in contact," in one 

 specimen out of nine recently examined they were in contact ; 

 he says that none of the chin-shields next the " lower rostral " 

 (=symphysial) are " elongated," in most specimens one pair are, 

 but occasionally these are broken up into small squarish shields, 

 this was probably the case in his specimen ; he does not mention 

 the character of the scaling of the lower side of the digits. 



His description of the coloration is good, but the wording differs 

 from mine, he mentioning dark bands across the body, while I 

 mention yellow ones ; this seeming discrepancy being due to 

 whether one takes the dark parts as bands and the light as inter- 

 spaces or vice versa. 



The examination of further specimens confirms my opiuion that 

 the sexes do not differ in size or colour. 



