1886. | Recent Literature. 257 
the third differs from the others in the scale-covered structure of 
the tongue. The Amphisbznide are regarded as a degraded 
type of Teiidz, and are placed in the third subdivision, between 
that family and the Lacertide. The chameleons alone form the 
suborder Rhiptoglossa. The Uroplatide are discovefed to differ 
from the Gecconida in the proximally simple clavicles and other 
important characters ; the Scincoids of Duméril and Bibron are 
scattered through several families, in accordance with the views 
of Cope; the remaining Scincidz corresponding to Cope’s Scin- 
cide, Sepidze and Acontiidz ; the Zonuridz comprise the genera 
Zonurus, Platysaurus and Chamaesaura; while the Anguidz include 
Cope’s Anguide and Gerrhonotide. He admits Cope’s family 
Aniellide, regarding it as a degraded form of Anguide. A fam- 
ily Gerrhosauridz is established for Gerrhosaurus, which is placed 
near the Scincide; the Anelytropide are regarded a degraded 
type of the Scincidæ, and the degraded genus Dibamus is, among 
the scale-tongued lizards, the equivalent of the Aniellida in the 
smooth-tongued series. 
Of this system it may be said that it is a great advance over 
any that has yet been adopted in any European country. There 
are, however, a good many important characters of the skeleton 
which have not been used by Dr. Boulenger, and which give 
ground for a further subdivision of the order Lacertilia. The 
affinities of the families cannot, in fact, be estimated without 
th The, form of the prodtic bone is one of these, and the 
enclosure or non-enclosure of the olfactory lobes of the brain by 
the frontal bones is another. The mode of articulation of the 
occipital sclerotome presents important differences. Some of these 
characters divide his group second into groups of equal value 
with his groups 1 and 111; and others indicate a greater difference 
between the Amphisbzenians and the Teide than Dr. Boulenger 
admits. The composition of the ramus mandibuli affords impor- 
tant characters, so as to distinguish readily the Anolide and 
Acontiidz, families not admitted by Boulenger. 
This work is, however, the best we now have on the subject, and 
will give a great impetus to its study. 
A second preliminary paper is devoted to the geographical dis- 
tribution of the Lacertilia. He notices the parallelism, first 
noticed by Wagler, between the Agamidæ and Lacertide of the 
old world and the Iguanide and Teiidz of the new. The Cen- 
tral American fauna presents a greater variety of types than 
South America, as it has representatives of every one of the 
ported by the Lacertilia, which range also according to longitude 
rather than latitude. ey 
