514 Recent Literature. [May, 
creates a number of new names, including two new generic names, 
which is an inexcusable proceeding, because the names are unnec- 
essary. His selection of genera for adoption is purely arbitrary. 
Most of the rejected stand on as valid basis as those adopted, 
some of them on identical characters, as, for instance, Eutenia 
rejected and Ophibolus adopted, both resting on the entire anal 
scutum. The adoption of specific names is equally arbitrary. Of 
both kinds of types the author not infrequently displays remark- 
able ignorance. Thus the genus Hypsiglena Cope, is ad 
but a species of that genus, Æ. torquatus, is placed in Sibon, and 
two distinct species of the latter genus are placed under the “S. 
torquatum” as varieties or sub-species. So with Sympholis lip- 
piens Cope, which appears in one place as a species of “ Gophis, 
and in another under the synonym Chilorhina villarsi Jan, asa 
distinct generic form. Contia episcopa appears under the sub- 
generic head Contia, while its variety, C. 2sosona, is placed | 
the sub-generic head of Sonora. The C. pyg@a is not in the list 
at all. There are, in fact, several omissions of North gore 
species, and so many Mexican species are omitted that the title € 
the paper is misleading. The arrangement of the species will 
the genera is confused, and does not in any way express, of 
mutual relations. As an instance we refer to the ole 
species he calls Geotriton. Four species of Spelerpes pe 
list, then an CEdipus (O. variegatus), then a Spelerpes, piani 
(Edipina, then four Spelerpes, then two CEdipus; then finally an 
Stereochilus, then a Eryinophilus, then a Spelerpes, and No sp 
CEdipus identical with the fifth on the list above named. N° P 
cies of Géotriton appears. When we compare this suppression ¢ 
which are worthless, the inconsistency is striking. ; 
ne ea 4 of applying 
i w 
The author of the catalogue has a singular plan work in whid — 
: ure of 
as that of the true author. Thus Dr. Deyis has ws Pl in 
learning that Ny Adelophis copei was described by yrr 
that the Diploglossus millepunctatus O’Sh., is 
nessy took it to be, and is not a Eumeces, as SUpPOS acle of 
Garman ; and that the list of species of Ophibolus is a 
As with the genera, the adoption of species 
but the 
least nine 
confusion. gall subspecies © : 
entirely arbitrary, and appears to depend on nothing ae 
