ON THE NORTH AMERICAN LIZARDS OF THE GENUS BARISSIAOF GRAY.BYLeonhard Stejneger.Curator of the Department of Reptiles and Batrachians.Barissia imbricata (Wiegm.).Since Professor Baird, in 185S, described his Gerrhonotus oUvacetisvery little has been done with a view to determine its relation to theother species of the genus. Cope (Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 1, pp. 46,90) recognizes it as a separate species i)eculiar to the Pacific region,and Yarrow (Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 24, p. 46) and Garman (List. N.Am. Rept. and Batr., p. 13) follow his example, the former identifyingtwo [or, correctly, three] specimens in the National Museum (No. 7087)from Mexico as this species, thus including the latter country within therange of the species. Boulenger (Cal. Liz. Brit. Mus., ii, \). 273) in-cludes it among the synonyms of Gerrhonotus cceruleus, though with aquery, a most remarkable proceeding, since the original description ofProfessor Baird clearly indicates it as a member of the Barissia group,whether this name be taken in a generic sense, or not, as will be seenfrom the following quotation:No single froutal [="uo azygos prefrontal"]. A series of three pairs of platesbetween the vertical [= "frontal"] and rostral * * ? 39 transverse rows of scaleson back from head to tail. 12 longitudinal rows above ; the 6 central strongly cari-nated.No'mention is made of " projecting scales above the ear", a characterwhich Professor Baird would most probably have noted had it occuredin his specimens. Applying this description to Boulenger's own synop-sis of the species of the genus Gerrhonotus {torn, cit, p. 267), it will beseen that it falls within the characters assigned to G. imhricatus. Anexamination of Baird's type also proves most conclusively that G. oliva-ceus is a synonym of Barissia imbricata.*The specimens in hand, Professor Baird's types (TJ. S. Nat. Mus., No.3096), and three from Orizaba, collected by Sumichrast (No. 7087) agreein every respect inter se, as well as with Wiegmann's, Bocourt's, andBoulenger's descriptions of the typical G. imhricatus. In the arrange-ment of the cephalic shields, in the carination and numbers of dorsal
*Garman in his "Li.st" {I. c.) places G. oUvaceus in the genus Barissia, retainingimiricatus in Gerrhonotus. I can see no good reason for this, inasmuch as the latterspecies seems to be the type of the genus Barissia.Prcceedings National Museum, Vol. XIII?No, 809. 183
184 LIZARDS OF GENUS BARISSIA STEJNEGER.
rows, in proportions and coloration there seems to be no essential (lis-agreement, in proof of which I have appended below a table of some ofthe characters which can be expressed in a statement of tnat kind.The alleged localitj^ of the types can hardly be accepted as an objec-tion to this identificatiou. In Yarrow's catalogue of the specimen's inthe U. S. National Museum (Bull. No. 24, p. 40) the locality is given as"San Diego, Cal.," and Cope {II. cc.) also attributes B. olivacea to south-ern California. I doubt very much the correctness of this for variousreasons. In the first place the locality given in the original descriptionis only " near San Diego," and this is also the way it is written in theMuseum record-book, and I think it is impossible to say with certaintynow whether this San Diego is the city located in southern Californiaor one of the several other places of the same name in the neighborhoodof which the gentlemen connected with the U. S. and Mexican Bound-ary Commission collected specimens for the Smithsonian Institution.It is true that " Cal." is interpolated after San Diego in the report ofthe Boundary Survey, but that may have been nothing more than an
"editorial" correction made without consulting the records. Even if
" San Diego, Cal." had been intended originally, it does not follow thatthe specimens were collected I'er^/ " near" that place. The locality ofG. wehbii described only a few lines above G. olivaceus is also given as"near San Diego, Cal.," but if we turn to the original record in theMuseum register we will find that No. 3078 was collected "From SanDiego to El Paso," a distance of more than six hundred miles, as the crowflies. Specimens examined.
^?l89o"'] PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. 185Description of type specimen.?Head narrow, snout long, pointed ; headshields swollen ; two pairs of internasals, the posterior in contact with an-terior supraocular; one pair ofi)refrontals5 nasal separated from rostral;a snpranasal; a i)ostnasal; a loreal, pentagonal, not higher than wide,and separated from prefrontals; a preorbital; two suborbitals, theposterior very lon-g ; one very large upper postorbital and two minutelower ones ; ten antl twelve supralabials ; sides of neck covered withgranular scales; lateral fold, commencing below the ear opening;nuchal scales not keeled, in ten longitudinal rows ; dorsal scales ofmedium size, in sixteen longitudinal rows, the four median obtuselykeeled, the next two on each side with the keels still less pronouncedand the remainder smooth ; fortj'-six transverse dorsal rows ; ventralssmaller than dorsals, in twelve longitudinal rows; [tail reproduced].Color (in alcohol) above uniform "tawny-olive" with interruptedtransverse bands of black dots on the sides, the scales with the dotsbeing margined posteriorly, more or less distinctly, with whitish; underside dull pale clay-color, with irregular black dots on flanks and throat.Dimensions of type. Millimeters.From snout to veut 121From snout to ear opening 27From snout to fore limb 38From axilla to groin 67Greatest width of head 18Fore limb 27Hind limb ..? 34Unfortunately, the exact locality where the type of this species wascollected is not known ; all that the record book contains is " MexicanBoundary." It was evidently obtained by one of the surveying partiesof the United States and Mexican Boundary, but the original numberhaving become obliterated, it was re-entered in 1877 and the originallabel?or what remained of it?destroyed.The present species belongs to the same group as the foregoing,having " three pairs of shields between the frontal and the. rostral," orin other words, " two pairs of internasal scuta." It differs from B. im-bricata, however, in the greater number of dorsal rows, both longitudi-nal and transverse ; in the obsolete carination of the dorsal scales ; in theexclusion of the ioreal from the prefrontals ; in the smaller size andgreater number of the temporals, and in the narrower and more elon-gated shape of the head. It has the sixteen longitudinal rows of dorsalsin comaiou with B. planifrons BocouRT, but the head shields areswollen and the other characters which separate it from B. imbrioataalso distinguish it from B. planifrons. B. rudicollis is still fiirther re-moved by the low number of the transverse dorsal rows, the strongcarination of the nuchal shields, and the contact of the nasal with therostral.