Annals of the Transvaal Museum 
45 
The general distribution cited for formosus by Mr. Boulenger is Cape 
Colony, Bechuanaland, and Transvaal. I believe, however, that formosus 
in the strict sense does not occur in the Transvaal, nor have I seen any 
Bechuanaland records for this form ; it belongs essentially to western 
Cape Province. 
Other records for capensis secs, strict, are Potchefstroom (W. Moore) ; 
Athol, Ermelo District (Miss M. Forbes); and Dr. Werner gives Severelela 
in the Kalahari. The Athol specimen has eight thin white crossbands 
on the back, and reticulately arranged white lines on the hind part of the 
head ; the nasorostrals are separated, but the specimen is not quite adult. 
Pachydactylus rugosus Sm th. — Rietfontein, Gordonia (H. Drew). 
Dr. Werner records it from Kubub and Kamaggas in German South-West 
Africa. 
Pachydactylus maculatus Smith. — Mr. Boulenger’s general distribution 
for this species is Cape Colony, Natal, Transvaal, and Southern Rhodesia. 
I know of no records from the Transvaal, but possibly it occurs in the 
low veld districts, as it is known from Zululand. The Bulawayo record is 
the first from Rhodesia, and the species was not included in Mr. Chubb’s 
lists of the reptiles in the Bulawayo Museum. 
Pachydactylus ocellatus Cuv. — Mr. Boulenger cites Cape Colony, Natal, 
Transvaal and Angola, but I have never seen any record from Natal and 
the Transvaal. It is essentially a western species. Werner cites Kubub, 
Luderitzbucht , and S. Hereroland. 
Pachydactylus mariquensis Smith. — In view of the importance attached 
by Mr. Boulenger to the character which serves to distinguish his two 
divisions of the ocellatus section, I have re-examined the Bluecliff specimen 
of mariquensis (Port Elizabeth Museum). The specimen is undoubtedly 
referable to this species, having only three subdigital lamellae and perfectly 
typical head markings. The head is a little flattened and the snout if 
a trifle longer than the eye ; the nasorostrals are in contact ; the granules 
on the snout are about twice the size of those on the hinder part of the 
head ; the rostral is broader than deep and it does not enter the nostril. 
Having regard to this variation in the head character, I am very doubtful 
about the validity of P. serval Wern. and P. purcelli Boul. which I suspect 
to be forms of ocellatus. 
Pachydactylus serval Wern. — This form, according to the author of 
the species, is near to ocellatus, but differs as follows : — 
Snout somewhat longer than the eye, nasorostrals usually separated? 
subdigital lamellae 4-5 ocellatus. 
Snout If times as long as the eye, nasorostrals in contact, subdigital 
lamellae 6 serval. 
The dorsal pattern is dark brownish-grey with unarranged dark spots. 
There is evidently very little fundamentally different between these two 
forms ; at any rate they are nut so widely separated in their head characters 
as represented in Mr. Boulenger’s key, and the nasorostral character is 
quite unreliable as I have found much variation in this respect both in 
bibroni and in capensis. 
P. purcelli Boul. — The only character worthy of consideration is that 
furnished by the rostral scute, which is nearly twice as broad as deep and 
