Denburah cites, we will find tliat our hiserialia form is found in nearly 

 every county where any Scflopori liave been collected. 



Now as to the true atajis of the forms we would say that, in the 

 first place that the differences are so sUi^ht between them that it 

 only lacked specimens showins; that they inter^raded to demonstrate 

 that one form was but a sub-species of the otiier, but we now see 

 that they not only intergrade but l>oth have practically the same 

 range in the State of California. "By securing very young, or less 

 brilliantly colored, males there-should he no difficulty in determining 

 which species occurs in a given locality," Jlr. Van Denburgh states 

 as quoted above. However this may be, we were not aware here'to- 

 fore that the validity of a species is ever based upon characters of 

 immature specimens. 



, My iinderstanding of the matter, according to the code of nomen- 

 clature now in use, is that a sub species is a variation of a species 

 over a certain definite range, and this being the case, a species can 

 never extend over the same range as its sub-spocies, for if it did so 

 the latter would not then be such, but only a variation within that 

 species. Now here we certainly have not two distinct species, as the 

 above tables and the intermediate material at hand will show, and as 

 a species cannot possibly inhabit the same geographical area as its 

 sub-species, then we have a single species with a wide range, and 

 like all of these it has consiilerable variation. 



Under this head we would speak ( f the measurements of the 

 forms. Only six of the northern ones measured over 180 mm, while 

 forty-five of the southern ones mea-^nred that or over. This is not to 

 be wondered at however, as species distributed widiily in a north and 

 south directi m often appear to vary considerably, being larger at 

 one end of its range thin at the other, according as the favorableness 

 of the climate and environment sei-m to alTect its growth. 



The njaterial at hand does not allow of a comparison with S. un- 

 dtdatuf.. The true relation S. occidenlalis bears to this form is not yet 

 settled, and as Dr. Stejneger states: " "Under these circumstances 

 nothing is gained by using a trinomial." 



Baird & Girard described Sceloporxa occidentalis in the Proc. Phila. 

 Acad. Nat. l~^ci VI., 18.i2, (type locality, "(Jalil'ornia, probably Ore- 

 gon"), while Hallowell's <S'. hisn-inius was nut described until tvvo -eais 

 later, 1854, p. 9.'?, in the same journal; (type locality, "Border of El 

 Paso Creek and Tejon \'alley, California"). Thus the former name 

 will be seen to have priority, and this Californian species will here- 

 after stand as : 



Sc«loporus occidentalis BAIRD &. GIRARD. 



Sceloporus occidentalis BAIRD & GIR.ARD. Proc. Phila. 



Acad. Nat. Sci. VI., 1852, p. 17.5, and 1S5.S, p 301; GIR.VRD, U S. 

 Expl. Exped., Herpt, I8oS, p. :is:5, pi. XfX , a^i. 8-i-t; ? Paciflc R. H. 

 Surv., vol. X., 1859; STKGNEGER, North .\nier. Fauna, No. 7, 189S, 

 p. 186; VAN DENBURGH, Gee. Papeis Cal. Acad. ,-Sci. V'., p. 77 80. 



Sceloporus frontalis B VIRD& GIR \RD. Proc. Acad. Nat Sci. 

 Phila. VI.. 1852, p. 175; GIR.iRD, U. S. Expl. E.fped., Herpt, 1858, 

 p. 384, pi. XIX, figs. 1-7. 



Sceloporus biseriatus H.lLLOWEl.L. Proc. Acad. N-it. Sci. 

 Phila., 1854, p. 93, and U. S. Pac. R. R. Surv. Rept. X , pt. IV., 18.9, 

 p. 6, pis. VI., figs 2a-2f, and VIII BOOOURT, Mission .Sci. Mex. et 

 dans I'Amer. Cent. 3re partie, 1874, p. 197, pi. XVIII. bis., fig. 10; 

 STR.JNEGER, North Amer. Fauna, \o. 7, 1893, p. 184; VAX DEX- 

 BURGH, Proc. Cala. Acad. Sci. V . IS97, pp 80-84. 



Sceloporus bisariatus var. A,azireus HALLO WELL. Proc, 

 Acad. Nat. Sci Phila. VI., 1854, p. 94. ~ 



« North Amer. Fauna, No. 7, 1893, p 1S7. 



