1S72.] F. Stoliczka — On Indian Lizards. 121 



else those gentlemen's barometers must have been, as usually in similar cases, 

 out of order. 



What Theobald quotes as Tiliqua monticola in Cat. Kept. Asiat. Soc. 

 Mus., p. 24, is not this species, but to all appearance Euprepes olivaceus ; 

 there are three very slight keels on the dorsal scales, 30 longitudinal series 

 round the body, and about 34 between fore and hind-limb ; anterior frontal 

 in contact with rostral, but separated from vertical by a short suture of the 

 posterior frontals. Uniform olivaceous above, paler below. 



Ettheces, Plestiodcot, Henttlia, Eistella and allied genera. 



I adopt the name Sinulia as originally proposed by Gray. 



The name JEumeces cannot any longer be retained for the species which 

 are referred to it in Giintker's ' Reptiles of Brit. India'. Already in J. A. S. 

 B., vol. xxxix, p. 174, I have drawn attention to Dr. Peters' observation, that 

 Wiegmann's name Mumeces had been proposed for G-eoffroy's Scincus pavimen- 

 tatus = Sc. auratus, ScJmeid., = Scincus ScJmeideri, Geoff., = JPlestiodon Al- 

 drovandi, Dum. and Bib. &c. Therefore, Plestiodon is to be considered as 

 identical with Eumeces, which is the oldest name. The only as yet known 

 representative, we have of this restricted type of Lizards in India, is Blyth's 

 JEurylepis from the Panjab, which province has to a large extent an admix- 

 ture of African forms in its fauna (Comp. Jour. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, xxiii, 

 p. 739). Blyth, when describing JHurylepis, correctly refers to the figure 

 of Sc. pavimentatus in the ' Descr. de l'Egypt'., but he was not aware that 

 the species is identical with Sc. ScJmeideri, and that it is the type of 

 Eumeces.* There does not appear to be a differencef between Eurylepis and 



* Dr. Anderson (Proc. Asiat. Soc. B., for Sept. 1871) suggests that Fitzinger's 

 name Mabouia, (or rather Mabuya, as invariably written by Fitzinger) , should replace 

 Eumeces. I do not think that there is sufficient reason for this. Fitzinger, when sugges- 

 ting the name Mabuya, in 1826, (in Verz. Rept. p. 23), certainly says that the lizard 

 possesses palatine teeth, and the author places the genus in opposition to Gray's Tiliqua 

 which, he says, does not have palatine teeth. But Gray's old genus Tiliqua includes 

 a vast number of Seines with and without palatine teeth. Moreover, Fitzinger, when 

 giving in the same work (p. 52) a list of the species of Mabuya, quotes as the first species 

 Scincus quinque-carinatus, Kuhl, as the second Sc. carinatus, Daudin, as the 12th Sc. 

 agilis, Radde, and as one of the last Sc. ocellaims, Daudin, the Mabouya par excellence of 

 old author's ; but neither for the first nor for the last species has Fitzinger's name 

 Mabuya been retained. When writing his Syst. Eept, published in 1843, Fitzinger was 

 perfectly well aware of this confusion, and dropped the name Mabuya altogether, 

 most likely because it had not been accepted by Dum. and Bibron. He quotes (1. 

 cit.) Lacepede's "Mabouya" (Sc. ocellatus, Daud.)asthe type of Wiegmann's Gongylus, 

 and distributes the other species which he formerly referred to Mabuya into about 

 half a dozen genera. In 1845 Gray wished to rescue Fitzinger's name, (more correctly 

 written in the form of Mabouya), retaining it for Radde's Sc. agilis as type, and only in 

 this signification can, I believe, the name Mabouya find a place in our literature, if we 

 wish to avoid a greater confusion than already exists, 

 t Compare Anderson in Proc. A. S. B., Sept. 1871. 



