EEPTILIA. 
7 
an approach to the mixtnre of red and black described by Pallas. It is true that these red 
colours are probably seasonal, and that they tend to disappear in spirits, but the colouration 
in the specimens before me is so well preserved, that it would be surprising if no trace of red 
remained in any of them, and they were collected at various seasons, some in autumn, others 
in spring and early summer. 
I am unable to find Pallas’ figure of Lacerta caudwolmila, but there are two figimes of the 
species, both accompanied by descriptions, by Eversman^ and Eicbwald.^ These figures I have 
compared with the Tibet Jdlirymceplialus, and I find both agree with Pallas’ description of 
P. caudivolvuliis, and differ from P. tlieohaldi. It is true that Eversman gives the length of the 
body as I inch 11 lines and of the tail 2 inches 1 line, but bis figure shows a longer tall than this, 
whilst Eichwald gives the lengths of the body and tail respectively as 1 inch 8 lines and 2 inches 6 
lines, a proportion of 5 : 7'5. Eichwald describes the tail as having black rings towards the end, 
the interspaces below being red; Eversman merely says that there are black bands on the lower 
surface of the tail towards the extremity, with red interspaces. A comparison of Eversman’s 
or Eichwald’s figure with Steindachner’s bears out the view I have expressed of the species 
represented being distinct. 
Dumeril and Bibron ^ appear to me to have described a different species from Pallas’, 
under the name of Flirynocephcdus caudivolvulus. The tail is said to be but little longer than 
the body, and to be black at the end, with blackish spots along the sides of the remaining 
portion, and the ventral scales are said to be keeled, whereas Pallas, Eversman and Eichwald 
describe them as smooth. Dumeril and Bibron’s description agrees, except in having the 
ventral scales keeled, with P. tlieohaldi. Now, the specimen described by the Erench her¬ 
petologists came from Berlin, and was very probably identical with that compared with the 
Tibet Flirynocepilialus by Professor Peters.^ 
But what especially guides me in rejecting Pallas’ name for the Tibet JBhrynocephalus 
is that name itself, and the circumstance from which it was derived. Pallas says percepto 
inimAco caiidam coloratam versus dorsum in spiram promptissime revolvit, quod in nulla alia 
specie tAdi.” Now, there are two groups of IPhrynocepliali, to one of which belong P. olivieri^ 
and P. persicus ®; both of these I have seen alive in large numbers, and I never yet saw one 
coil its tail, whilst to the other belongs P. maculatus ’’ and a species to be described imme¬ 
diately, both of which have been observed, the latter by Stoliczka, the former by myself, to have 
a habit of coiling their tails. These last are much smoother, as a rule, than the Fhrynocepliali 
of the former group, and their tail is much longer, whilst in P. maculatus the under surface 
of the tail, when alive, is frequently red in part. I think it is to this group that the true 
Lacerta caudivolvula must belong, whilst P. tlieohaldi certainly belongs to the former group. 
In Mr. Theobald’s very good account of the habits of the present species ® which he obtained 
on the Tso-Morari in Bupshu, he makes no mention of having seen it coil its tail, nor does 
Stoliczka notice any such habit, although he especially describes it in the case of the other 
Turkestan species, and gives a sketch in his diary of the appearance presented. 
1 Lacertm Imperii Hossici, ITouv. Mem. Soc. Imp. Nat. Moscou, iii, p. 362, PI. xxxii, fig. 2. 
2 Fauna Caspia Caucasia, Nouv. Mem. Soc. Imp, Nat. Mosc., vii, p. 107, PI. xii, figs. 6, 7, PL xiii, figs. 9—14 
3 Brp. Gen., iv, p. 522. 
Giinther: Eept. Brit. Ind., p, 161. 
3 Bum. et Bibr.: Erp. Gen. iv, p. 517Eastern Persia, ii, p. 327. 
6 DePilippi: ArcbiT. Zool. Genova, ii, p. 387 Eastern Persia, ii, p. 329. 
7 Anderson: Proc, Zool. Soc., 1872, p. 388Eastern Persia, ii, p. 331. 
® Jour. As. Soc. Bengal, 1862, xxxi, p. 518. 
