VAEIETIES OF THE WALL-LIZA ED. 185 



Specimens from Crete, of which I have examined two only (hgr. d & $ ), presented 

 to the British Museum by Miss Dorothy Bate, agree with the Cyclades form in the 

 shape of the head and in the smooth dorsal scales, but differ in the rostral entering the 

 nostril. The numbers of scales and pores are here given for comparison : — 



Grey above, with a dark brown, light-edged lateral band; a black-and-white ocellus 

 above the shoulder ; lower parts bluish (in spirit). 



More specimens are required to decide whether the Crete lizard deserves a varietal 

 name. At present it cannot be identified with any variety with which I am acquainted. 

 Bedriaga {op. cit. p. 216) refers it to L. muralis fusca : '' Auf Kreta kommt eine 

 rubrivenfris mit schon ausgepragten Linien auf den Rumpfseiten und tippig gezeich- 

 netem Eiicken in Gemeinschaft mit der typischen yi<sca vor." 



IX.— SOUTHERN RUSSIA, CONSTANTINOPLE, ASIA MINOR, 

 AND NORTHERN PERSIA. 



Some years ago, when dealing with the history of the so-called Lacerta depressa of 

 Camerano *, I made some general remarks about the Wall-Lizards of this area, and 

 distinguished the following forms as varieties : — 



Var. chalybdea Eichwald (^depressa Werner). 



Var. saxicola Eversmann. 



Var. depi-essa Camerano (modesta Bedriaga, defilippii Boettger). 



\ aw ^Jortschinskii Kessler (depressa part., Camerano). 



Var. defilippii Camerano (persica Bedriaga, depressa, part., Camerano). 



Var. 7-udis Bedriaga {depressa, part., Camerano). 



All these were then known to me from autopsy. There remained one form, first 

 described by Berthold as L. hieroglypliica, and since referred by Werner to Lacerta 

 serpa, on which I could ofi'er no opinion. 



The view I took of the division into varieties is, on the whole, confirmed by the 

 descriptions, based on a larger material, since published by Prof. Mehely. I must take 

 objection, however, to the manner in which reference has been madef to my publica- 

 tion entitled " On the Lacerta depressa of Camerano," the object of which was to show 

 that a number of distinct forms, varieties I called them, had been included under that 

 name by Camerano and others, and I distinctly pointed out that the name depressa 

 should, in my opinion, be restricted to two of the specimens out of the six on which 



* P. Z. S. 1904, ii. p. 332. 



t Ann. Mils. Hung. vii. 1909, p. 409. 



2c2 



