Lacerta. 83 



Kolombat. Zool. Vij. Dalm. p. xxi (1900) ; Lehrs, Zoo]. Jahrb., Syst. 

 xxviii, 1909, p. 103, pi. ii, fig. 4. 



Lacerta viridis, var. major, part., Werner, Sitzb. Ak. Wien, ex, i, 

 1902, p. 1071. 



Lacerta 'major, Scbreib. Herp. Eur., ed. 2, p. 499 (1912). 



Lacerta major, var. subocellata, Schreib. op. cit. p. 602. 



I was tlie first to define, as a race or variety, tliis form, individuals 

 of which had previous!}' been referred to colour-varieties of the 

 typical L. viridis (punctata) or of the var. strigata (quinquevittata, 

 irilineata). The diagnosis was as follows : " A larger form, attaining 

 nearly to the size of L. ocellata. Constantly a series of granules 

 between the supraoculars and superciliaries ; occipital usually as 

 broad as or a little broader but shorter than the interparietal ; 

 temporal scales smaller than in the typical form, usually with a very 

 distinct tympanic shield. 50 to 58 scales across the middle of the 

 body, the laterals not larger than the median dorsals. Usually a 

 well-developed additional series of ventrals, making in all eight 

 longitudinal rows. Femoral pores 15 to 20. Young olive above, 

 usually with three or five yellowish longitudinal streaks, the lower- 

 most of which, extending from axilla to groin, is often replaced by a 

 series of round spots, these bands usually disappearing in the 

 adult, which are green on the body and limbs, uniform or finely 

 speckled with black ; upper surface of head vermiculated with black ; 

 lower surfaces yellow, the outer ventrals often speckled with black ; 

 throat never blue." I still regard this as a good definition of the 

 var. major (only requiring slight modification owing to the larger 

 material now before me), which has since been raised to the rank of 

 species by Schreiber, influenced no doubt by the remarks of Werner, 

 who has expressed the opinion that it is morphologically the most 

 distinct of the forms into which L. viridis must be divided. I have 

 unfortunately not had access to the material on which Werner basfed 

 his revised account in 1902, but I cannot help doubting whether all 

 the specimens included by him under var. major should really be 

 referred to that form. In commenting on my definition he says he 

 cannot find any difference in the number of scales, since these vary 

 between 42 and 52 in L. . viridis typica and between 42 and 54 in the 

 var. major* And the 11 specimens tabulated by him from Asia 

 Minor have only 42, 44, and 46 scales across the middle of the body, 



* I am not able to confirm Werner's statement (1902, p. 1074) that the 

 number increases in the course of growth of the individual, through 

 disintegration. 



