228 
MR, A. W, K. O^SHiVtTGRNREiBV ON 
[Feb, U 
The specimrns were collectefl at three distinct stations: — via, 
Candos, Pallatunga, and Sarayacu. 
Tejid.'E. 
1. CxNTROPnt DOESAi'ig, Gunthef. 
Monoptocus (hrmfis, Giinther, P. Z, S. 185!). p. AOA, 
C'entropyx pelvkeps. Cope, Pr, Ac. Phil. 1868, p. 93. 
1 Ceitiropys altamasonicus. Cope, J, Ac, Phil, (n, b.) viii. 1876, 
p. (62. 
Two peri men the largest measuring about 11^ inches long, 
frnm Cnnelos. Another good-sized aiiecimen, from ihe PeruvittH 
Amazona, is also in the Oritish Museum, By its keeled prseanal 
iicutes this species would be the C. altamasankm. Cope, rather than 
his C. pehiceps ; hwt I am inclined to think that the very small 
specimen on which the former is founded will prove ideiitind with 
the latter. If so, both must be referred to the species described by 
Dr. Guiither, also on a small type specimen, in which, after re- 
newed examination. I do not find that the distinctions relied on by 
Prof. Cope when dciscribing C, pelviceps hold good, as I couiit 
fonrtecn longitudinal series of ventrals in the middle of the body, 
and can also distinguish femoral pores. The largest specimen from 
Cantdos has the sixteen ventral series characteristic of C. allama- 
zomcuSf lliough tliat ispecies siiows ihem already in a young speci- 
men, 1 may add that Dr, Gunther's type possesses tlie anal spurs 
of this genus. 
2, NeCSTICURUS ECfLEOPUS. 
I^-eu«tiatrus ecpfeopus, Cope, J, Ac. Phil, 1870, j>. 1 6 I ; 0*iahaugh. 
Ann. N. U. ser. 5, vol. iv. p. 29;-) (1«79). 
PaHatangn, 
Cercosatjrid,e. 
Emminia otimeea of Gray is a Cercosaura^ as was rightly surmised 
by Dr. Peters in 1803; moreover it is so closely related to Cerca- 
taura oceiiata, Wagler, that nothing but the conspicuous lateral 
ocelli and the three additional femoral pores of that species separate 
them. With regard to the precaiial scutes, 1 may mention tliat 
another speeimen from Para, which, some time since*, I had occasion 
to add to the named series in the British Museum, iias the two large 
plates figured by Peters as belonging to Wagler's sjjecies, instead of 
the four smaDci* marginal plates of Gray's type ; but on this ground 
alone I should not venture to separate it from C. oHvaceUt with 
wliich it agrees exactly in every detail. It is [ierha]js superfluous 
to state that no foundation for the peculiar position assigned to the 
nostril by Dr* Gray is afforded by the specimen, 
A similar variability in the arrangement of the prteanal scutes, 
associated with an irregularity in the plates of the muzzle, is shown 
in a series of four specimens, which, however, cannot be speciticaHy 
diittinct, and are ilonhtless refi-rable to the species dej^oribed by Prof. 
