44 
Annals or the Transvaal Museum. 
Pachydactylus capensis Sm'th. — Dr. Werner regards the following 
as local forms of this species: P. capensis sens, strict., with weakly keeled 
dorsal tubercles ; P. formosus , with strongly keeled dorsal tubercles and 
four to five subdigital lamellae ; P. fasciatus, with strongly keeled dorsal 
tubercles and six to nine subdigital lamellae. He allows mentomarginatus 
Smith and weberi Roux to rank as distinct species. Now mentomar- 
ginatus was reduced both by Mr. Boulenger and myself as a synonym of 
formosus ; and the author of weberi himself stated that this species comes 
between capensis and formosus. In my paper I pointed out the resemblance 
between weberi and fasciatus. As regards affinis Boul., it was stated by 
Roux (Zool. Jahrb. 25, p. 410) that the author of that species had agreed 
with him to sink affinis as a synonym of formosus. It is now my opinion 
that all these so-called species are nothing more than forms of capensis, 
for the characters by which they are distinguished — degree of keeling of 
dorsal scales, arrangement of nasal scutes — are so variable that it is 
undesirable to give them either individually or collectively specific value ; 
it is certain, however, that several of these forms may justly rank as 
geographical varieties separated by colour pattern and by loosely defined 
structural differences. The var. formosus has a distinctive pattern and 
may also be separated from the var. capensis by the dorsal scaling and 
according to Dr. Werner by the shape of the symphisial scute, which is 
longer than that of capensis ; the var. affinis appears to be distinguished 
from capensis proper through the head scaling only ; the var. fasciatus 
has a characteristic pattern and has rather more subdigital lamellae than 
the typical capensis : weberi is only distinct in the arrangement of its 
nasal scutes, but as it was described from four specimens we may presume 
that the same arrangement was common to all, though Dr. Roux does 
not expressly state thus. 
The confusion that exists on these matters can be guessed at by com- 
paring together the various locality records. Capensis and affinis are both 
recorded (Boulenger) from the same collector in Southern Rhodesia, all 
previous records having been given as affinis only ; both capensis and 
formosus are assigned to Port Elizabeth, the latter being quite new for 
the coastal districts of eastern Cape Colony ; Schultze’s number 742 
from Steinkopf is referred by Dr. Werner partly to capensis and partly 
to formosus — Dr. Roux recorded capensis from that locality. If we must 
accept all these records, it follows that the various forms capensis, formosus. 
and affinis — call them as we will species or varieties — have no geographical 
significance. 
The most obvious difference between capensis and formosus is in the 
dorsal pattern, and it is interesting to note that parallel differences in other 
groups of animals obtain between the western Cape and Transvaal repre- 
sentatives of the same species. For instance, the Cape Peninsula form 
of Bufo regularis is a much handsomer creature than that of the high 
plateau, and the Cape form of Amplorhinus multimaculatus is appropriately 
named, whilst the high veld form of this species is uniformly dull green ; 
Dispholidus lypus is more handsomely marked in Cape Province than in the 
Transvaal, and similar striking differences are seen in Sepedon haemachates 
and in Agama atm. 
