20 
SECOND YARKAND MISSION. 
Although I feel far from satisfied that the western form is really separable from the eastern 
(Jf. sikkimensis) , most of the differences pointed out by Dr. Stoliczka appear sufficiently 
marked to justify the two being kept apart. The general aspect and colour of the two forms 
are different, and the number of scales round the body appears larger in Jf. himalayma, though 
this is variable. In specimens from Mari, there are almost constantly twenty-eight rows round 
the body, whilst in the Sonamurg examples the prevailing number is only twenty-six. 
There is certainly one specimen in the Indian Museum, labelled E. sikkimensis fi’ onl 
Darjiling and presented by Dr. Jerdon, which has thirty rows of scales round the body, but the 
colouration is so different from that of all other Sikkim specimens, that I cannot but suspeet 
there is some mistake in the locality, for Dr. Stoliczka had large collections from Sikkim, ;irU l 
found no marked variation, whilst the colouration of the specimen from Dr. Jerdon is precisely 
that of the North-Western form, and it has a large strongly denticulated ear-opening. 
The distinctions noticed by Dr. Stoliczka between the head shields of Mocoa himalwy an( l 
and Jf. sikkimensis are not home out by the large series before me, nor is there, so far as 
can see, any constant difference in the limbs, but the ear-opening, as a rule, is decidedly larg el 
and more denticulated in Jf. himalayana. There are more scales round the body, and there 
is a marked difference in colouration, Sikkim specimens being much browner and wanting 
greenish white line along the lower portion of the side, which is conspicuous in Jf. hirn<'lc r !J' 
cma. Still it is highly probable, as indeed Dr. Stoliczka suggested, that intermediate forms 
may connect the two. 
This species appears to be common in Kashmir. The specimens labelled from Matarau 
were probably collected on the road from Sonamurg, for every other Mocoa from the I 11( 
valley in Ladak belongs to the next species. Mataian itself is on the north side of the nio un 
tains which separate the Kashmir valley from Ladak. 
15. Mocoa stoliczkai ( ?=M. ladacensis). 
Euprspet stoliczkai, Steindachner : Novara Expedition, Reptilien, p. 45. 
A. kargilensis, Steindachner : ib., p. 46. g 
Eumeces ladacensis, Anderson : Proc. Zool. Soe., 1872, p. 375 -,—forsan Gunther : Rept. Brit. IiA, 1' 
,i .. Tjadski 
1-3, Mataian; 4-8, Kargil; 9, Namika-la; 10-16, Kharbu ; 17-19, Lamayuru — all in the Indus valley, 
20-24, no label. 
It is most probable that there is really only one species of Mocoa in the Upp Rr ^ 
valley, and that the different names above enumerated belong to it. If this be the case, 1 
if the specimen described by Dr. Gunther be really identical, the species must bear the u 
of Mocoa ladacensis. But I am unable to identify the specimens brought by Dr. °to 
with Gunther’s species, because in not one of the individuals collected does the fore foot reaC ^ iall 
snout , 1 and because, although the three rows of scales beneath the tail are rather broader ^ 
those above, and the middle row is slightly more developed than the other, there is sca „ 
such a difference as I should suppose to be implied by the character of <( subcaudals broa^ 
It must be borne in mind, too, that the locality of Dr. Gunther’s type rests u I ,0 ^.^ eS 
authority of Messrs, von Schlagintweit, whose want of accuracy with reference to the l° ca 
assigned to their reptilian collections is notorious. 
1 Thus was noticed also by Dr. Anderson 1. c. 
