112 



GTMNODACTTLrs scABEH, Heyden. 



Peters, Mon. Ac. Berl. 1862, p. 271 ; Gasco, Yiaggio in Egitto ', 

 (pt. ii.) 1876, p. 113. 



Egypt : MM. Barnim and Hartmann. Peters. 



Near Cairo : Gasco. 



Egypt : J. Doubleday. Boulenger. 



AaAMIDiE. 



Ueomasxix acanthintjeus, Bell. 



Nubia : EUppell, Mus. Smck. iii. 1845, p. 303. 



Egypt : A. Dum^rU, Cat. Meth. Eept. 1851, p. 109. 



Egypt: BoeLtger, Kat. Kept. Mus. Senck. 1893, p. 55. 



There is no evidence that this species has ever been found in 

 Egypt. Eiippell only gives Nubia as the locality whence his 

 specimens were obtained. One of them went to Paris, where the 

 locality appears as Egypt ; while, on the other hand, the 



' I bad long been in search of the late ProfesBOr Gasca's work, cited above, as 

 I was aware that it contained o, list of the Reptiles collected, on his journey 

 through Egypt, in company with the late Prof. P. Panceri. I had, however, 

 a,pplied in vain to the bookaellers for a copy ; but on mentioning this to Count 

 Peracoa, he very kindly presented me with one, which enables me to mention 

 some reptiles which Prof. Gasco collected in Egypt. I think it is evident, 

 however, that he had no great acquaintance with reptiles, as he refers two 

 snakes obtained by himself, near Alexandria, to the American genus Oxyrophis, 

 designating them 0. scolopax, Klein. As some of the species of that genus have 

 black heads, I am disposed to think tiat his two specimens were examples 

 of Macroprotodon oucullattis, Is. Geoffr., which occurs in the district of 

 Alexandria. 



It is also stated by Professor Gasco that two examples of Lacerta ocellata, 

 Daud. were obtained in the same locality, and he referred them to a variety which 

 he called lepida. It seems highly improbable, however, that this species should 

 occur in Egypt, and as Gasco did not distinguish between Eremias guttulata, 

 Licht., and E. rubropimctata, Licht., it is just possible that he may have 

 mistaken an ocellated specimen of the former for L. ocellata, Daud. Of course 

 this is only guess-work, but so unlikely is it that the last-mentioned species 

 should be found at Alexandria, that I feel compelled to suggest some expla- 

 nation of how the error may have arisen. 



He also records Fsammodromus algirus, Linn., and says " this species, which 

 abounds in Algeria and Spain, was collected by us only i& the neighbourhood 

 of Alexandria." My impression is that in this case also we have an error of 

 identification, and that Gasco had probably before him some species of 

 Acanthodactylus. 



