TEIUS TEGUIXIN. 203 



Lacerta teguixin, LiNN. Mus. Adolph. Freder. 1754, 45 ; Syst. Nat. edit. X% 1760, 

 208 ; &, edit. XII% 1768, 368.— Gaiel. Linn. Syst. Nat. ed. XIIP, I, 1788, 1073. 



Seps marmoratus, Latjr. Synops. Rept. 1768, 59. 



Lacerta monitor, Latr. Hist. nat. Rept, I, 1801, 220. 



Tupinambis monitor, Daud. Hist. nat. Rept. Ill, 1803, 20. — Kuhl, Act. Acad. nat. 

 cur. XI, 1820, 125.— Maxim. Reise in Bras. I, 1820, 61 & 159 ; II, 1821, 138 ; Beitr. 

 Naturg. Bras. I, 1825, 155.— Spix, Nov. Spec. Lacert. Bras. 1825, 19, Tab. xix. 



Monitor meriani, Blainv. Bull. Soc. Pliilom. 1816, 111. 



Tejus monitor, Merr. Tent. Syst. Amph. 1820, 61. — Maxim. Rec. PI. d'Aaim. Col. 

 1822. 



Monitor teguixin, FiTZ. Verz. Zool. Mus. Wien, 1826, 51. — EicHW. Zool. Spec. Ross. 

 & Polon. Ill, 1837, 190. 



Podinema teguixin, Wagl. Naturl. Syst. Amph. 1830, 133. — Wiegm, Herp. Mexic. 

 I, 1834, 8. 



Teguixin monitor, Grat, Synops. Rept. in Griff. Anim. Kingd. IX, 1831, 29. 



Tejus teguixin, Shinnz. Naturg. und Abbild. Rept. 1833, 96, PI. xxxv (Copies 

 Maximil.).— Gray, Ann. Nat. HisI I, 1838, 276; &, Catal. Lizz. Brit. Mus. 1845, 16. 



Saloator merianae, DuM. & BiBR. Erpet. gen. Y, 1839, 85. 



Le teguixin, Daub. Quad. Ovip. & Serp. (Eneyl. meth.), 685. 



Le teyougouazou, AzzARA, Ess. Hist. Nat. Quadr. Parag. II, 1802, 387. 



Variegated lizard, Shaw, Gen. Zool. Ill, I, 1802, 235, PI. Lxxiii & LXXIV. 



La sanvegarde d'Amerique, Cuv. R^gn. Anim. II, 1817, 27. 



La grande sauvegarde d'Arnerique, Cuv. R<^gu. Anim. 2d edit. II, 1829, 28. 



The great American safeguard, Griff, in Cuv. Anim. Kingd. IX, 1831, 113. 



Observ. — This animal having often been described and several 

 times figured, we might have simply alluded to it here in recording it 

 in this report. The beautiful figure of it, made by the artist of the 

 Exploring Expedition, while at Rio de Janeiro, in January, 1839, has 

 induced us to speak in general terms of its most prominent features. 



Modern writers distinguish two species, apparently very closely 

 allied, distributed over the same geographic range, and exhibiting the 

 same general pattern of coloration, which, in both, is liable to varia- 

 tions of some minor degrees, according to age and sex. 



The apparent organic difierences between the two species alluded to 

 by herpetologists, consist in the number of plates on the loral (phrenic) 

 region, and the number also of shields along the upper part of the tem- 

 poral region : differences which must necessarily appear very shght. 



The Expedition brought home but one specimen, a prepared skin, 

 about the size of the accompanying figure, which was made from an- 

 other specimen, one-third larger. With such materials on hand, we 

 cannot criticise the validity of the distinction drawn between the two 

 species, and since the specimen before us exhibits the traits attributed 



