20 
SECOND YAEKAND MISSION. 
Although I feel far from satisfied that the western form is really separable from the eastern 
(M. siMimensis), most of the differences pointed out hy 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 M. Mmalayana, 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. siTckimiensis from 
Darjiling and presented hy Dr. Jerdon, which has tliirty rows of scales round the body, hut the 
colouration is so different from that of all other Sikkim specimens, that I cannot but suspect 
there is some mistake in the locality, for Dr. Stoliczka had large collections from Sikkim, and 
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 hy Dr. Stoliczka between the head shields of Mocoa himalayana 
and M. siJcMmensis are not borne out hy the large series before me, nor is there, so far as I 
can see, any constant difference in the limbs, hut the ear-opening, as a rule, is decidedly larger 
and more denticulated in M. hi/malayana. There are more scales round the body, and there 
is a marked difference in colouration, Sikkim specimens being much browner and wanting the 
greenish white line along the lower portion of the side, wliich is conspicuous in M. himalay¬ 
ana. Still it is highly probable, as indeed Dr. Stoliczka suggested, that intermediate forms 
may connect the two. 
This species appears to he common m Kashmir. The specimens labelled from Mataian 
were probably collected on the road from Sonamurg, for every other Mocoa from the Indus 
valley in Ladak belongs to the next species. Mataian itself is on the north side of the moun¬ 
tains which separate the Kashmir valley from Ladak. 
15. Mocoa stoliczkai ( ?=Jf. ladacensis). 
Eupnpet stoliczhai, StQ\udia.(i\mev: Novara Expedition, Reptilien, p. 45. 
E. hargilensis, Steindacliner: ib., p. 46. 
Eumeces ladacensis, Anderson : Proc. Zool. Soe., 1872, p. 375 ',—forsan Giintber: Kept. Brit. Ind., p. 88. 
1-3, Mataian; 4-8, Kargil; 9, Namika-la ; 10-16, Kharbu ; 17-19, Lamayuru—all in the Indus vaUey, Ladak; 
20-24, no label. 
It is most probable that there is really only one species of Mocoa in the Upper Indus 
valley, and that the different names above enumerated belong to it. If this he the case, and 
if the specimen described hy Dr. Gunther he really identical, the species must hear the name 
of Mocoa ladacensis. But I am unable to identify the specimens brought hy Dr. Stoliczka 
with Giinther’s species, because in not one of the individuals collected does the fore foot reach the 
snout,^ and because, although the three rows of scales beneath the tail are rather broader than 
those above, and the middle row is slightly more developed than the other, there is scarcely 
such a difference as I should suppose to he implied hy the character of ‘‘suhcaudals broad.” 
It must he borne in mind, too, that the locality of Dr. Giinther’s type rests upon the 
authority of Messrs, von Schlagintweit, whose want of accuracy with reference to the localities 
assigned to their reptilian collections is notorious. 
^ This was noticed also by Dr. Anderson I. c. 
