220 . SAURIA. 



Observ. — The chief difference which exists between this genus and 

 Ahlepliarus, to which it is closely related, consists in a circular eyelid, 

 which forms a complete ring around the eye, though immovable and ru- 

 dimentary. The posterior extremity of the vertex plate is contiguous 

 to the anterior angle of the combined parietals and middle occipital, 

 whilst in Ahlepharus the large supraoculars of either side form a con- 

 tinuous chain posteriorly, which interposes itself between the vertex 

 plate and the middle occipital ; they are likewise well developed in the 

 latter genus, whilst the parietals are wanting, their place being occu- 

 pied by the posterior supraoculars. In Ahlepharus, moreover, we 

 observe two very large preanal shields, whilst in Gryptohlepliarus, 

 there are four preanal shields of moderate size, though larger than the 

 adjoining scales on the interfemoral region. 



1. Crtptoblepharus plagiocephalus, Grd. 

 (Plate XXVI, figs, n-24.) 



Spec. Char. — Scales of the body disposed upon twenty-eight longitu- 

 dinal series around its middle region. Median series of subcaudal 

 scales larger than the rest. Ground color above of a bronze or cop- 

 pery hue, with two light lines : one on each side of the back, and 

 margined with brown. Beneath unicolor, greenish, or orange. 



Syn. — Scincus plagiocephalus, Peron, MSS. 

 Cri/ptoblepharus peronii, CocT. Etud. Seine. 1836 (figured). 

 Ahlepharus peronii, DuM. & BiBR. Erpet. gen. V, 1839, 813, 

 Cri/ptoblepharus loutonu, Gray, Catal. Lizz. Brit. Mus. 1845, 64. 

 Tiliqua huchanayii, Gray, in Ann. Nat. Hist. II, 1839, 291. 



Observ. — It is with hesitation and reluctance that we record the 

 present species under the above appellation. We have been compelled 

 to it by the want of specimens from the localities whence those of our 

 predecessors were obtained. A question of such vital importance to 

 zoological geography as the present one, is not to be passed over with 

 indifference. The species is given by various writers as almost cos- 

 mopolite : we are ready to acknowledge the fact upon evidences, and 

 these evidences, for us, are the various specimens themselves, compared 

 carefully with one another. 



