OCR Text |
Show 18/6.] MR. W. T. BLANFORD ON INDIAN REPTILES. 637 another similar pair which I had kept myself; and I agree with Dr. Stoliczka in considering it a distinct species. The two males have, one 18, the other 19 femoral pores in each thigh. In the two specimens retained as types of the species in the Indian Museum the basal portion of the tail appears not to have been renewed, and it is distinctly and regularly ringed. In one specimen especially* three rings remain which show no signs of ever having been renewed (the terminal portion of the tail is palpably a regrowth). In the other there are eight rings preserved at the base of the tail, but they are not so clearly of original growth. In neither of these specimens are there any enlarged tubercles on the tail. Dr. Stoliczka, who examined large numbers of specimens, never found more than eight femoral pores in each thigh in H. coctai. In the Museum-specimens, which, however, are not numerous, I find five or six, whilst there is always an enlarged tubercle on each side of the tail on the posterior portion of each ring. The only specimens of this species I can find in the Museum are from Calcutta and Allahabad: they are labelled H. bengaliensis, Anderson. If Dr. Giinther has specimens from other localities with more numerous femoral pores, it is to be hoped he will publish the fact. So far as I can judge, H. giganteus comes nearer to II. leschenaulti than to H. coctai. The former, as a rule, is distinguished by having tubercles on the back ; but this is not always the case. Nor can I agree in identifying Hemidactylus berdmorei (Leiurus berdmorei, Blyth ; Doryura berdmorei, Theobald) with the young of II. coctai. Blyth's type specimen is in the Museum here; and on corn-paring it with a specimen of H. coctai of the same size, I find that the tail of Af. berdmorei, which does not appear to have been reproduced, is quite smooth ; whilst in that of II. coctai the tubercles at the side, although small, are distinctly seen. The scales of the abdomen are a little larger in H. berdmorei; but the most characteristic distinction of the latter is in its very much smaller feet and toes, the latter being but little more than half the size of those of H. coctai. The plates beneath the toes appear more numerous and broader in H. Coctai; but the type of H. berdmorei is not in good condition, and it is difficult to examine it closely. Lastly, Dr. Stoliczka has pointed out that in D. berdmorei there are from fourteen to sixteen pores in each thigh, whilst, as already mentioned, he never found more than eight in H. coctai. It is true that the nuaiber of femoral pores varies in individuals with all Lizards; but still the amount of variation, so far as my experience goes, keeps within limits ; and I think the distinction, that one species has habitually six to eight pores in each thigh, and another fourteen to sixteen, is probably sufficient to show that they are different forms. I cannot find Dr. Stoliczka's specimens of Hemidactylus berdmorei : they do not appear to be in the Museum here. Calcutta, May 12, 1876. PROC. ZOOL. Soc-1876, No. XLII. 42 |