110 
Annals of the Transvaal Museum. 
Museum), which I refer to this species, the dorsal scales are obtusely keeled 
almost up to the shoulders. 
On the other hand lineocellata, especially in southern localities, may 
vary in the direction of pulchella. But again, I have seen one specimen of 
Eremias, probably referable to lineocellata — identity not quite certain, as 
the head was badly damaged — which had all the dorsal scales strongly 
keeled, commencing from the hinder part of the head. This specimen 
came from Mochudi (Miss Wilman). Besides the above-mentioned 
character, the proportions of the supraoculars provide a good but not 
absolute method of distinguishing the two species. To the specific dis- 
tinctions cited in the key may be added : anterior supraocular longer 
than, equal to, or more than half the length of the second supraocular in 
E. pulchella , but not much more than half the length of the second supra- 
ocular, or at any rate not equalling the second in E. lineocellata. But 
very rarely there appears a specimen of pulchella where the supraoculars 
are entirely surrounded by granules, and I have seen an example of this 
species which had the first supraocular only about half the length of the 
second. In E. lineocellata there is much variation in the number and 
size of the granules between the anterior supraocular and the loreal. 
Eremias burchelli and E. capensis. — These closely related species are 
easily distinguished by the character of the granules between the loreal 
and the first supraocular, and I believe by the number of scales in a 
transverse line dorsallv ; in E. capensis the fronto-nasal usually forms a 
suture with the rostral, but occasionally these two scutes are just separated. 
One specimen of E. burchelli has four white lines dorsally, the two median 
ones not fusing ; another specimen also in the South African Museum 
has black reticulations, almost confluent into broad dorsal bands. In the 
collection of the Albany Museum there are three immature specimens 
of an Eremias which should probably be referred to burchelli. They agree 
together in many essential respects, and were taken by the same collector 
(B. J. Glanville), so that I believe they belong to one and the same species. 
Nevertheless, they exhibit certain differences which, if constant in a series 
of adult specimens, would be regarded as of specific importance. In one 
case the fronto-nasal meets the rostral, and the prefrontals form a median 
suture ; in another case the rostral and fronto-nasal do not meet, and the 
prefrontals are separated by an azygos scale, and in the third case the 
fronto-nasal is cut off from the rostral, but forms a suture with the frontal. 
In the* first case the condition of the scales between the loreal and the 
first supraocular is much as in burchelli, in the second case it more closely 
resembles capensis, and in the third case there is what might be described 
as an intermediate condition. The number of scales across the body 
dorsally is sixty to sixty-three, whereas according to the descriptions in 
the British Museum Catalogue burchelli has seventy to seventy-five and 
capensis has fifty to fifty-five. However, in a typical specimen of burchelli 
from Graaff-Reinet (Port Elizabeth Museum) there were sixty-five scales 
across the dorsal surface of the body. In the largest of the three specimens 
above mentioned the body is elongated, and the adpressed hind limb does 
not reach quite as far as the shoulder. The colour markings vary, and 
the only feature common to all three is a well-defined pale lateral streak, 
