8 
SECOND YAEKAND MISSION. 
I have not OYerlooked the fact mentioned by Dr. Giinther in the Reptiles of British 
India,” ^ and to which reference has already been made, that specimens from Tibet had been 
compared by Professor Peters of Berlin with typical examples of L. ccmdivolvula, and fonnd 
specifically identical. I confess that it appears at the first glance as if the opinion of so high 
an authority on the Reptilia as Professor Peters mnst he more correct than mine, hut I think 
there mnst he some mistake, as I have already indicated when noticing the description of 
P. caudivolvulus by Dumeril and Bihron. The original types of Pallas can scarcely he in 
Berlin, and it has frequently happened that other species have been sent from Russia under 
Pallas’ names. Dnder any circumstances I cannot hut think, for the reasons given above, that 
Pallas must have described a diiferent lizard. 
Steindachner in his description of P. stoliczkcB, which is certainly the same lizard as 
P. tlieohaldi, several of the specimens examined by Steindachner being from the typical 
locality of the last-named species, points out that P. stoliczkce differs from P. caudivolvulus 
in its shorter tail and in having smooth scales on the up|)er surface of the limbs. The latter 
character, however, is not constant. Keels may generally he detected in P. theohaldi on the 
scales of the tarsus, and not unfrequently on the thigh and forearm, and in the Turkestan 
variety, P. forsytlii, they are the rule. The length of the tail is, however, a characteristic 
distinction, though, I believe, it is not the only one. 
It is only after long and repeated comparison that I have come to the conclusion, that 
P. forsytlii of Anderson cannot he separated from P. theohaldi? At the first glance, 
they appear distinguished by colour and by the Turkestan form having some scattered, whitish, 
enlarged scales on the back, and keels on the scales covering the upper surface of the hmbs. 
Individuals, however, vary greatly in the scales of the back; in some these are convex and 
granular, in others flat, smooth, and even subimbricate; in some larger in the middle of the 
back, in others nearly the same size throughout. The scales on the top of the head are 
scarcely ahke in any two individuals ; some have the scales large on the occiput and very 
small on the supra-orbital region, in others all are of about equal size ; in some the enlarged 
superciliary scales almost reach the nasals, in others three or four small scales intervene. 
The keels on the limb scales and the enlarged scales on the sides of the back are no more 
constant than the other characters. I find specimens from Western Tibet with a few 
scattered enlarged scales, and with distinct keels on the limb-scales, and I find specimens from 
Eastern Turkestan in which the enlarged scales are wanting and the keels can scarcely 
be detected. 
Even in colouration, I do not think the difference, although it is usually marked, is 
constant. P. forsythi has almost always a row of rather distant dark spots, arranged in pairs 
down each side of the back. These spots consist of rather pointed scales. P. theohaldi 
varies exceedingly in colour. Some specimens, perhaps the most, are rather irregularly 
spotted, others have large ocelli on the back; in others again there are no markings whatever. 
But there is very often a tendency to a double row of spots down the back, and in some 
cases a very near approach to the colouration of P. forsythi^ and in the latter the spots 
1 p. 161. 
2 I may here remark that I believe Dr. Anderson was misled by his collectors into supposing that the specimens of IP. theohaldi 
described by him, Proc. Zool. Soc., 1872, p. 387, under the name of P. caudivolvulus, were from Yarkand. Like the gecko named by 
him Cyrtodacfylus yarlcandensis, I think it almost certain that the Phrynocephali in question must have been collected in the 
Upper Indus valley, in Ladak. Every specimen from Yarkand and Eastern Turkestan in Dr. Stoliczka’s large collection has the 
colouration of P. forsythi, whilst the specimens described by Dr. Anderson, which I have examined, are undistinguishable from 
some of those procured by Dr. Stoliczka in Ladak. 
