F. Stoliczka — On Indian Lizards. 
121 
1872.] 
else those gentlemen’s barometers must have been, as usually in similar cases, 
out of order. 
What Theobald quotes as Tiliqua monticola in Cat. Kept. Asiat. Soe. 
Mus., p. 24, is not this species, but to all appearance Euprepes olivaceus ; 
there are three very slight keels on the dorsal scales, 30 longitudinal series 
round the body, and about 34 between fore and hind-limb ; anterior frontal 
in contact with rostral, but separated from vertical by a short suture of the 
posterior frontals. Uniform olivaceous above, paler below. 
Exjmeoes, Pi.estiodox, Htnulia, Eistekla and allied genera. 
I adopt the name ELmulia as originally proposed by Gray. 
The name Eumeces cannot any longer be retained for the species which 
are referred to it in Gunther’s 1 Reptiles of Brit. India’. Already in J. A. S. 
B., vol. xxxix, p. 174, I have drawn attention to Dr. Peters’ observation, that 
Wiegmann’s name Eumeces had been proposed for GeoSroy’s Scincus pavimen- 
tatus - Sc. auratus, Sehneid.,— Scincus Schneideri, Geoff., = Plestiodon Al- 
drovandi, Dum. and Bib. &c. Therefore, Plestiodon is to be considered as 
identical with Eumeces, which is the oldest name. The only as yet known 
representative, we have of this restricted type of Lizards in India, is Blyth’s 
Eurylepis from the Panjab, which province has to a large extent an admix- 
ture of African forms in its fauna (Comp. Jour. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, xxiii, 
p. 739). Blyth, when describing Eurylepis, correctly refers to the figure 
of Sc. pavimentatus in the ‘ Descr. de l’Egypt’., but he was not aware that 
the species is identical with Sc. Schneideri, and that it is the type of 
Eumeces. * There does not appear to be a differencef between Eurylepis and 
* Dr. Anderson (Proc. Asiat. Soo. B., for Sept. 1871) suggests that Fitzinger’s 
name Mdbov/ia, (or rather Mabuya, as invariably written by Fitzinger), should replace 
Eumeces. 1 do not think that there is sufficient reason for this. Fitzinger, when sugges- 
ting the name Mabuya in 1826, (in Verz. Rept. p. 23), certainly says that the lizard 
possesses palatine teeth, and the author places the genus in opposition to Gray’s Tiliqua 
which, he says, does not have palatino teeth. Bnt Gray’s old genus Tiliqua includes 
a vast number of Seines with and without palatino teeth. Moreover, Fitzinger, when 
giving in the same work (p. 52) a list of the species of Mabuya, quotes as the first species 
Scincus quvnque-cari>uitus, Kuhl, as the second Sc. carinatus, Daudin, as the 12th Sc. 
agilis , Radde, and as one of the last Sc. ocellatus, Dandin, the Mo.bouya par excellence of 
old author’s ; but neither for the first nor for the last species has Fitzinger’s name 
Mabuya been retainod. When writing his Syst. Rept, published in 1813, Fitzinger was 
perfectly woll aware of this confusion, and dropped the name Mabuya altogether, 
most likely because it had not been accepted by Dum. and Bibron. He quotes (1. 
cit.) Lacepede’s “ Mabouya” (Sc. ocellatus, Daud.) as the type of Wiegmanu’s Gongylus, 
and distributes the other species which he formerly referred to Mabuya into about 
half a dozen genera. In 1845 Gray wished to rescue Fitzinger’s name, (more correctly 
written in the form of Mabouya), retaining it for Radde’s Sc. agilis as type, and only in 
this signification can, I believe, the name Mabouya find a place in our literature, if we 
wish to avoid a greater confusion than already exists, 
f Compare Anderson in Proc. A. S. B., Sept. 1871. 
