Chapter II: Part 2

_Sceloporus clarki clarki_ BELDING, West Am. Scientist,
v. 3, no. 24, 1887, p. 99.

_Sceloporus zosteromus_ VAN DENBURGH, Proc. Cal. Acad.
Sci. 2d ser. v. 5, 1895, p. 110; BOULENGER, Proc. Zool.
Soc. Lond. 1897, p. 498; MOCQUARD, Nouv. Arch. Mus.
sér. 4, v. 1, 1899, p. 314.

This lizard has been taken only by Mr. Belding.

=4. Phrynosoma cerroense= _Stejneger_.

_Phrynosoma hernandezi_ BELDING, West Am. Scientist, v.
3, 1887, p. 99.

_Phrynosoma cerroense_ STEJNEGER, N. Am. Fauna, no. 7,
1893, p. 187; VAN DENBURGH, Proc. Cal. Acad. Sci. 2d
ser. v. 5, 1895, p. 119; COPE, Report, U. S. Nat. Mus.
1898 (1900), p. 428, fig. 75.

This form is known from a single specimen collected by Mr. Belding.

=5. Verticaria hyperythra beldingi= (_Stejneger_).

_Verticaria beldingi_ STEJNEGER Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus.
1894, p. 17.

_Verticaria hyperythra beldingi_ VAN DENBURGH, Proc.
Cal. Acad. Sci. 2d ser. v. 5, 1895, p. 131.

Cerros Island is the type locality of this form.

=6. Cnemidophorus multiscutatus= (_Cope_).

_Cnemidophorus tessellatus multiscutatus_ COPE, Trans.
Am. Philos. Soc. v. 17, art. 3, 1892, p. 38; COPE,
Report, U. S. Nat. Mus. 1898 (1900), p. 586.

_Cnemidophorus multiscutatus_ VAN DENBURGH, Proc. Cal.
Acad. Sci. 2d ser. v. 5, 1895, p. 126.

Professor Cope described this form from specimens secured on Cerros Island.

=7. Cnemidophorus labialis= _Stejneger_.

_Cnemidophorus labialis_ STEJNEGER, Proc. U. S. Nat.
Mus. 1889, p. 643; COPE, Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. v. 17,
art. 3, 1892, p. 51; VAN DENBURGH, Proc. Cal. Acad.
Sci. 2d ser. v. 5, 1895, p. 128; COPE, Report, U. S.
Nat. Mus. 1898 (1900), p. 610.

Cerros Island is the type locality of this species also. Five specimens were collected by Mr. Belding.

=8. Crotalus exsul= _Garman_.

_Crotalus exsul_ GARMAN, Mem. Mus. Compar. Zool. Camb.
v. 8, no. 3, 1883, pp. 114, 174; GARMAN, Bull. Essex
Inst. v. 16, no. 1, 1884, p. 35; VAN DENBURGH, Proc.
Cal. Acad. Sci. 2d ser. v. 5, 1895, p. 157.

Under this name Garman has described from two specimens a small rattlesnake from Cerros Island. It seems very closely related to _C. atrox_.

NATIVIDAD ISLAND.

I have seen only one lizard from this island.

=1. Uta stansburiana= _Baird & Girard_.

A single specimen (Cal. Acad. Sci. No. 4705) of this _Uta_ was secured on Natividad by Mr. R. H. Beck, May 9, 1903.

MAGDALENA ISLAND.

I have elsewhere recorded six species of lizards from this island. It is necessary only to mention them here. The specimens are in the collection of the Academy.

=1. Dipsosaurus dorsalis= _Baird & Girard_.

_Dipsosaurus dorsalis_ VAN DENBURGH, Proc. Cal. Acad.
Sci. 2d ser. v. 5, 1895, p. 93.

One was secured by Mr. Bryant in March, 1889.

=2. Crotaphytus wislizenii= _Baird & Girard_.

_Crotaphytus copeii?_ VAN DENBURGH, Proc. Cal. Acad.
Sci. 2d ser. v. 5, 1895, p. 95.

Upon reëxamination, I am unable to separate two specimens from Magdalena Island from the common form of this lizard.

=3. Uta nigricauda= _Cope_.

_Uta nigricauda_ VAN DENBURGH, Proc. Cal. Acad. Sci. 2d
ser. v. 5, 1895, p. 108.

Mr. Bryant secured a number of these lizards on Magdalena Island in 1888 and 1889.

=4. Sceloporus zosteromus= _Cope_.

_Sceloporus zosteromus_ VAN DENBURGH, Proc. Cal. Acad.
Sci. 2d ser. v. 5, 1895, p. 110; BOULENGER, Proc. Zool.
Soc. Lond. 1897, p. 499; MOCQUARD, Nouv. Arch. Mus.
sér. 4, 1899, P. 314; COPE, Report, U. S. Nat. Mus.
1898 (1900), p. 358.

The Academy has eight examples of this lizard taken on Magdalena by Mr. Bryant in February and March, 1889.

=5. Verticaria hyperythra beldingi= (_Stejneger_).

_Verticaria hyperythra beldingi_ VAN DENBURGH, Proc.
Cal. Acad. Sci. 2d ser. v. 5, 1895, p. 132.

Three specimens were collected by Mr. Bryant in March, 1889.

=6. Cnemidophorus rubidus= (_Cope_).

_Cnemidophorus rubidus_ VAN DENBURGH, Proc. Cal. Acad.
Sci. 2d ser. v. 5, 1895, p. 127.

A lizard of this species was taken on Magdalena Island in March, 1889, by Mr. W. E. Bryant.

SANTA MARGARITA ISLAND.

Five reptiles are known from this island. I have not seen specimens of the _Bascanion_ and cannot judge of its distinctness.

=1. Callisaurus ventralis= (_Hallowell_).

_Callisaurus ventralis_ VAN DENBURGH, Proc. Cal. Acad.
Sci. 2d ser. v. 5, 1895, p. 98.

A female of this species, taken on Santa Margarita by Mr. Bryant, March 5, 1889, is in the collection of the Academy.

=2. Sceloporus zosteromus= _Cope_.

_Sceloporus zosteromus_ VAN DENBURGH, Proc. Cal. Acad.
Sci. 2d ser. v. 5, 1895, p. 110; BOULENGER, Proc. Zool.
Soc. Lond. 1897, p. 499; MOCQUARD, Nouv. Arch. Mus.
sér. 4, 1899, p. 314; COPE, Report, U. S. Nat. Mus.
1898 (1900), p. 358.

Two examples were secured by Mr. Bryant on Santa Margarita, March 1, 1889.

=3. Cnemidophorus rubidus= _Cope_.

_Cnemidophorus tessellatus rubidus_ COPE, Trans.
Am. Philos. Soc. 1892, p. 36, pl. XII, fig. F;
COPE, Report, U. S. Nat. Mus. 1898 (1900), p. 584, fig.
110.

_Cnemidophorus rubidus_ VAN DENBURGH, Proc. Cal. Acad.
Sci. 2d ser. v. 5, 1895, p. 127.

Santa Margarita Island is the type locality of this species, which was described from seven specimens brought back by the _Albatross_.

=4. Bascanion laterale fuliginosum= (_Cope_).

_Bascanion laterale_ COPE, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. v. 12,
1889, p. 147.

_Zamenis lateralis fuliginosus_ COPE, Am. Nat. v.
29, 1895, p. 679; COPE, Report, U. S. Nat. Mus. 1898
(1900), p. 809, fig. 178.

This snake was described from two specimens taken by the naturalists of the _Albatross_. I have seen none.

=5. Crotalus mitchellii= _Cope_.

_Crotalus mitchellii_ VAN DENBURGH, Proc. Cal. Acad.
Sci. 2d ser. v. 5, 1895, p. 160; COPE, Report, U. S.
Nat. Mus. 1898 (1900), p. 1196.

A single rattlesnake of this species, taken by Mr. W. E. Bryant in February, 1889, is the only record for this island.

SOCORRO ISLAND.

The following lizard is the only reptile known from this island.

=1. Uta auriculata= _Cope_.

_Uta auriculata_ COPE, Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. v.
14, 1871, p. 303; BOULENGER, Cat. Liz. Brit. Mus. v. 2,
1885, p. 214; COPE, Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. no. 32, 1887,
p. 35; TOWNSEND, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. v. 13, 1890, p.
143; COPE, Report, U. S. Nat. Mus. 1898 (1900), p. 300.

This _Uta_ was first described by Cope in 1871 from material collected by Grayson. Townsend secured nine specimens which are now in the National Museum. The California Academy of Sciences has seventeen, taken by its expedition to the Revilla Gigedo Islands in 1903.

CLARION ISLAND.

Although smaller than Socorro and farther from the mainland, Clarion Island is better supplied with reptiles than its larger neighbor, since it possesses a snake as well as a _Uta_, while Socorro has only a _Uta_.

=1. Uta clarionensis= _Townsend_.

_Uta clarionensis_ TOWNSEND, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. v.
13, 1890, p. 143; STEJNEGER, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. v.
23, 1901, p. 715.

This lizard was first collected by Mr. C. H. Townsend who described it from five specimens. Mr. A. W. Anthony also secured it, in 1897, and sent specimens to the National Museum. The Academy has three taken by Mr. Beck.

=2. Bascanion anthonyi= _Stejneger_.

_Bascanion anthonyi_ STEJNEGER, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus.
v. 23, 1901, p. 715.

Dr. Stejneger described this snake from thirteen specimens sent to the National Museum by Mr. Anthony. The Academy has eight examples of the species. The scale-rows are seventeen in all these specimens, while the gastrosteges vary from one hundred and eighty-seven to one hundred and ninety-six and the urosteges from ninety-three to one hundred and seven.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE II.

_Autodax lugubris farallonensis_ subsp. nov.

_Type_, Cal. Acad. Sci. no. 3731, South Farallon Island,
California, Charles Fuchs, February 8, 1899.

Fig. 1. General view, natural size.
Fig. 2. Head from above, × 2.
Fig. 3. Head from below, × 2.
Fig. 4. Head from side, × 2.
Fig. 5. Mouth, × 2½
Fig. 6. Hind limb, × 2.
Fig. 7. Fore limb, × 2.

PROC. CAL. ACAD. SCI. 3^D. SER. ZOOL. VOL. IV.

[VAN DENBURGH] PLATE II.

MARY WELLMAN. DEL

PHOTO.-LITH. BRITTON & REY. S. F.
]

EXPLANATION OF PLATE III.

_Batrachoseps pacificus_ Cope.

Cal. Acad. Sci. no. 4601, San Miguel Island, California, R. H.
Beck, March 23, 1903.

Fig. 1. General view, natural size.
Fig. 2. Head and neck from above, × 3.
Fig. 3. Head and neck from below, × 3.
Fig. 4. Head and neck from side, × 3.
Fig. 5. Mouth, × 3½.
Fig. 6. Fore limb, × 3½.
Fig. 7. Hind limb, × 3½.

PROC. CAL. ACAD. SCI. 3^{D}. SER. ZOOL. VOL. IV.

[VAN DENBURGH] PLATE III.

MARY WELLMAN. DEL

PHOTO.-LITH. BRITTON & REY. S. F.
]

EXPLANATION OF PLATE IV.

_Sceloporus becki_ sp. nov.

_Type_, Adult male, Cal. Acad. Sci. no. 4537, San Miguel Island,
California, R. H. Beck, March 26, 1903.

Fig. 1. General view, natural size.
Fig. 2. Head from below, × 2½.
Fig. 3. Head from above, × 2½.
Fig. 4. Head from side, × 2½.

PROC. CAL. ACAD. SCI. 3^{D}. SER. ZOOL. VOL. IV.

[VAN DENBURGH] PLATE IV.

MARY WELLMAN. DEL

PHOTO.-LITH. BRITTON & REY. E. F.
]

EXPLANATION OF PLATE V.

_Xantusia riversiana_ Cope.

Fig. 1. Cal. Acad. Sci. no. 3571, San Clemente Island, California.
General view, × ⅔.

Fig. 2. Cal. Acad. Sci. no. 6613, San Nicolas Island, California,
Joseph Grinnell, May 22, 1897. Natural size.

PROC. CAL. ACAD. SCI. 3^{D}. SER. ZOOL. VOL. IV.

[VAN DENBURGH] PLATE V.

PHOTO.-LITH. BRITTON & REY. S. F.
]

EXPLANATION OF PLATE VI.

_Uta martinensis_ sp. nov.

_Type_, Cal. Acad. Sci. no. 4698, San Martin Island, Lower
California, Mexico, R. H. Beck, May 3, 1903.

Fig. 1. General view, natural size.
Fig. 2. Head from above, × 2½.
Fig. 3. Head from side, × 2½.
Fig. 4. Scales of back, × 3.
Fig. 5. Hind limb, × 1¾.

PROC. CAL. ACAD. SCI. 3^{D}. SER. ZOOL. VOL. IV.

[VAN DENBURGH] PLATE VI.

MARY WELLMAN. DEL

PHOTO.-LITH. BRITTON & REY. S. F.
]

EXPLANATION OF PLATE VII.

_Gerrhonotus scincicauda ignavus_ subsp. nov.

_Type_, Cal. Acad. Sci. no. 4699, San Martin Island, Lower
California, Mexico, R. H. Beck, May 3, 1903.

Fig. 1. Head from side, natural size.
Fig. 2. Base of tail from side, natural size.

_Gerrhonotus scincicauda_ (_Skilton_).

Cal. Acad. Sci. no. 3897, Santa Rosa Island, California, Gustav
Eisen, June 1897.

Fig. 3. Head from side, natural size.
Fig. 4. Base of tail from side, natural size.

PROC. CAL. ACAD. SCI. 3^{D}. SER. ZOOL. VOL. IV.

[VAN DENBURGH] PLATE VII.

MARY WELLMAN. DEL

PHOTO.-LITH. BRITTON & REY. S. F.
]

EXPLANATION OF PLATE VIII.

_Uta stellata_ sp. nov.

_Type_, Adult male, Cal. Acad. Sci. no. 4704, San Benito Island,
Lower California, Mexico, R. H. Beck, May 6, 1903.

Fig. 1. General view, natural size.
Fig. 2. Head from side, × 3.
Fig. 3. Head from above, × 3.
Fig. 4. Scales of back, × 3.
Fig. 5. Scales of central part of back, much enlarged.
Fig. 6. Hind limb, × 1¾.

PROC. CAL. ACAD. SCI. 3^{D}. SER. ZOOL. VOL. IV.

[VAN DENBURGH] PLATE VIII.

MARY WELLMAN. DEL

PHOTO.-LITH. BRITTON & REY. S. F.
]

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

THIRD SERIES

ZOOLOGY VOL. IV, NO. 2

_Issued December 2, 1905_

THE SPECIES OF THE REPTILIAN GENUS ANNIELLA,
WITH ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO ANNIELLA
TEXANA AND TO VARIATION IN
ANNIELLA NIGRA

BY JOHN VAN DENBURGH

_Curator of the Department of Herpetology_

The genus _Anniella_ was established by J. E. Gray[10], in 1852, to contain a single species which he named _Anniella pulchra_ and described in the following terms:

"Silvery (in spirits); upper part with very narrow brown zigzag lines placed on the margin of the series of scales, the line down the center of the back and two or three on the upper part of the sides being thicker and nearly half the width of the scales.

_Hab._ California, _J. O. Goodridge, Esq., Surgeon R. N._"

This species has since been more completely described by Bocourt,[11] Boulenger,[12] Cope,[13] and Van Denburgh.[14]

[Footnote 10: Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 2d ser. v. 10, 1852, p. 440.]

[Footnote 11: Miss. Sci. au Mex. Recherches zool. 3d pt. p. 460.]

[Footnote 12: Cat. Liz. Brit. Mus. v. 2, 1885, p. 299.]

[Footnote 13: Report, U. S. Nat. Mus. 1898 (1900), p. 674.]

[Footnote 14: Occas. Papers, Cal. Acad. Sci. 5, 1897, p. 116.]

In 1885 Fischer[15] described under the name _Anniella nigra_ a specimen said to have been collected at San Diego, California. This, he stated, differed from _Anniella pulchra_ in the following characters:

1. Twenty-eight longitudinal rows of scales.

2. The three median preanal scales twice as long as those
preceding.

3. Tail one-third total length.

4. Color above black.

[Footnote 15: Abh. Nat. Verein Hamburg, v. 9, Hft. 1, 1885, p. 9.]

I have elsewhere[16] stated that the number of scale rows in _Anniella pulchra_ varies from twenty-four to thirty-four. The preanal scales in both the dark and light forms may be small, moderately enlarged, or twice the length of those preceding. The tail of _A. pulchra_ may equal or exceed one-third of the total length of the animal. I have been unable to discover any differences in the squamation of dark and light specimens; and since the recognition of _A. nigra_ as distinct from _A. pulchra_ must rest solely upon the difference in pigmentation, one is tempted to inquire whether this is not merely an instance of melanism. Upon this subject I shall have more to say, but I wish first to consider certain peculiarities of squamation which have been held to distinguish another species.

[Footnote 16: Occas. Papers, Cal. Acad. Sci. 5, 1897, pp. 116, 118.]

_Anniella texana_ was described by Mr. Boulenger,[17] in 1887, from a single specimen labeled El Paso, Texas--a locality so far beyond the limits of the known range of the genus and of other Californian reptiles that it must be regarded with much suspicion until confirmed by the capture of additional specimens. The type of _A. texana_ agrees in coloration with _Anniella pulchra_, but Mr. Boulenger finds it to differ in certain details of squamation. He assigns to it the following characters:

1. Head less depressed, snout more rounded than in _A. pulchra_.

2. A horizontal suture from nostril to second labial.

3. Frontal twice as broad as long.

4. Anterior supraocular nearly as broad as its distance from its
fellow.

5. Interparietal and occipital divided (anomalously?) by a
longitudinal suture.

6. Six upper labials, etc.

7. A narrow shield separates the third labial from the loreal.

8. Five lower labials.

9. Twenty-eight scales around middle of body.

10. No enlarged preanal scales.

11. Tail ending obtusely, three-eighths total length.

12. Dark gray above, with three fine black longitudinal lines;
sides and lower surfaces whitish.

[Footnote 17: Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 5th ser. v. 20, 1887, p. 50.]

I will now consider these characters in connection with variations found in a series of specimens of _A. pulchra_ and _A. nigra_.

1. The shape of the head and snout is subject to some variation in both _A. pulchra_ and _A. nigra_. Unless the difference in shape in the type of _A. texana_ is very great, one is safe in ignoring it as a basis of specific distinction.

2. One of my specimens of _A. nigra_ (Cal. Acad. Sci. No. 6255) shows a horizontal suture extending from the nostril to the second labial. Another (No. 6244) has such a suture between the nostril and the rostral plate.

3. There is considerable variation in the shape and size of the frontal plate in both _A. pulchra_ and _A. nigra_. It not infrequently is twice as broad as long (No. 6236, etc.), but may be nearly as long as broad. Sometimes it nearly touches the rostral (No. 5103).

4. The anterior supraocular is nearly as broad as the distance which separates it from its fellow in some specimens of _A. pulchra_ (No. 5110) and _A. nigra_ (Nos. 6233, 6243, 6249, etc.). In some specimens it has scarcely more than half this breadth.

5. I regard the plates which Mr. Boulenger calls interparietal and occipital as frontoparietal and interparietal, respectively. The former plate is not completely divided in any of my specimens. One example of _A. pulchra_ (No. 5110), however, has it longitudinally divided throughout the posterior third of its length. The interparietal (occipital of Mr. Boulenger) is completely divided longitudinally in one example of _A. nigra_ (No. 6228) and divided through one-fifth its length in another (No. 6218).

6. This is the normal arrangement, but is subject to variation.

7. This shield may be absent.

8. The number of lower labials ranges from five to seven.

9. The number of scales around the middle of the body varies in _A. pulchra_ from twenty-four to thirty-four, while in 54 specimens of _A. nigra_ the number is twenty-eight in 12, thirty in 36, and thirty-two in 6.

10. The preanal scales, as already stated, may be not enlarged, moderately enlarged, or twice as long as those preceding them. This is true in both _A. pulchra_ and _A. nigra_.

11. The length of the tail is subject to so much variation that it cannot be regarded as furnishing a good specific character. The longest ones I have seen are one-third the total length in _A. nigra_ and two-fifths in _A. pulchra_.

12. This is the coloration of some specimens of _A. pulchra_.

It will be seen that, with one exception, all of the characters of _Anniella texana_ have been found in specimens of _A. pulchra_ and _A. nigra_ either as the normal condition or as individual variations. The single exception is the complete division of the frontoparietal plate--a condition which is manifestly anomalous, since this plate has been found partially divided in other specimens. It is evident therefore that _Anniella texana_ must stand as a synonym of _A. pulchra_ Gray.

_Anniella texana_ being thus disposed of, one is tempted to treat _A. nigra_ in the same way, regarding it as based merely upon melanistic individuals of _A. pulchra_. This view we certainly should have to adopt if both dark and light colored specimens occurred in the same localities, but I believe this has not yet been shown to be the case. Fischer, to be sure, states that the type of _A. nigra_ came from San Diego, where _A. pulchra_ is especially abundant, but it is quite possible that his specimen did not really originate there. All of the dark specimens I have seen, have been secured on the coast of Monterey County; and, aside from Fischer's, I know of no records of the black _Anniella_ from any other locality, except Cope's[18] reference to specimens from San Francisco. Aside from the type locality, then, it would seem that the dark form has a very limited range, being confined to the southern part of the Pacific Fauna of the Transition Zone.

[Footnote 18: Report, U. S. Nat. Mus. 1898 (1900), p. 675.]

In a large series of alcoholic specimens from the coast of Monterey County, I find very few showing a style of coloration similar to that of _A. pulchra_. A specimen from San Ardo, in the interior of this county, is typical of _A. pulchra_, but San Ardo is in the Upper Austral Zone. Not more than four or five of the fifty-four specimens from the coast zone could be in the least confusing, and all of these are more deeply pigmented above than is any example of _A. pulchra_ before me. Forty-eight of these specimens were sent me alive, and in that condition exhibited a greater range of coloration than they show since preservation in alcohol, which seems to have intensified their dark pigmentation while dissolving the beautiful yellow of their lower surfaces. When the living lizards were received from Carmel and Point Pinos, they were divided into ten groups according to the intensity of the dorsal pigmentation, and measurements were taken of each specimen in each group. These grades of pigmentation of the living specimens, with measurements in millimeters from snout to anus and anus to tip of tail, are as follows:

1. Entire upper surface (ten, twelve, or fourteen rows of scales) and ventral surface of tip of tail very dark Indian purple. Chin and throat lighter Indian purple. More or less suffusion with Indian purple about anus. Rest of lower surfaces and sides bright gamboge yellow with chromium green staining near center of belly. Mouth flesh-color. Labials and temporals minutely dotted with iridescent greenish, silvery, or bronze. Eye black with bronze or silvery markings.

153 15 Lateral line present No dorsal line
150 73 Lateral line Trace dorsal line
150 70 Lateral line Trace dorsal line
150 38 Lateral line No dorsal line
147 40 No lateral line No dorsal line
146 75 No lateral line No dorsal line
146 25 Lateral line No dorsal line
145 70 Trace lateral line No dorsal line
143 17 Trace lateral line No dorsal line
140 68 Lateral line No dorsal line
140 50 Lateral line No dorsal line
138 32 Faint trace lateral lines No dorsal line
137 68 Lateral line Trace dorsal line
137 47 Lateral line Trace dorsal line
136 45 Lateral line No dorsal line
135 65 Lateral line No dorsal line
135 53 Trace lateral line No dorsal line
134 65 Lateral line No dorsal line
133 60 Lateral line No dorsal line
132 63 Lateral line Trace dorsal line
131 50 Lateral line No dorsal line
131 16 Lateral line No dorsal line
130 34 Lateral line No dorsal line

2. Dark hair-brown above; bright gamboge below; chin Indian purple.

146 70 Lateral line No dorsal line
131 20 Two lateral lines Trace dorsal line

3. Dark purplish drab above; wax-yellow with Paris or chromium green below; chin and throat lighter Indian purple.

140 40 Two lateral lines Trace dorsal line
134 20 Lateral line Faint trace dorsal line
123 25 Lateral line No dorsal line
120 60 Lateral line Fair dorsal line

4. Hair-brown above; gamboge below; chin Indian purple.

130 65 Two lateral lines Dorsal line
120 52 Lateral line Faint dorsal line

5. Dark drab above; waxy gamboge below.

126 65 Two lateral lines Distinct dorsal line
126 60 Lateral line Indistinct dorsal line
125 20 Two lateral lines Faint dorsal line
125 60 Two lateral lines Indistinct dorsal line

6a. Bronzed drab above; light wax-color below; chin light Indian purple.

125 63 Two lateral lines Faint dorsal line

6b. Drab above; light wax-color below; chin light Indian purple.

117 55 Two lateral lines Faint dorsal line
116 55 Two lateral lines Faint trace dorsal line
112 20 Two lateral lines Dorsal line
105 48 Two lateral lines Dorsal line

7. Grayish drab above; wax-yellow below; chin lighter Indian purple.

126 30 Two lateral lines Faint trace dorsal line
122 60 Two lateral lines Trace dorsal line
121 20 Two lateral lines Incomplete dorsal line
119 55 Strong lateral line Trace dorsal line
116 55 Strong lateral line Faint trace dorsal line

8. Dark drab-gray above; dull wax-yellow below; chin light Indian purple.

124 60 Lateral line Faint dorsal line

9. Drab-gray above; straw and Naples yellow below; chin light Indian purple.

118 56 Two lateral lines Dorsal line

10. Bronzed drab-gray above; pale wax-yellow below; chin light Indian purple.

92 41 Two lateral lines Very distinct dorsal line

These notes show clearly that the intensity of pigmentation increases quite gradually and fairly regularly with the size of the individual, and that while young specimens may be nearly as pale as some dark individuals of _A. pulchra_, all of the large specimens are of the dark type. It is also true in a general way that the smaller the specimen the more distinctly the lines are shown.

In the light of our present knowledge, therefore, it seems necessary to regard _Anniella nigra_ as a local and probably recently differentiated race rather than as a melanistic phase of _Anniella pulchra_. While the difference is purely one of color, no intergradation has yet been shown to occur in adult specimens, and the two forms must therefore be recognized as distinct species occupying separate areas in different faunal zones.

If then we ignore the localities of the type specimens of "_A. texana_" and _A. nigra_, as open to question until confirmed by the finding of additional specimens, the known distribution of the species of the genus _Anniella_ is as follows:

=Anniella pulchra.=
UPPER AUSTRAL ZONE.
_San Diegan Fauna._
San Diego County.
San Diego, Coronado, mountains near San Diego.
Riverside County.
San Jacinto.
San Bernardino County.
San Bernardino.
_Californian Fauna._
Kern County.
Oil City to Poso Creek.
Tulare County.
Sequoia National Park.
Fresno County.
Fresno.
Monterey County (interior).
San Ardo.
San Benito County.
Bear Valley.
Contra Costa County.

=Anniella nigra.=
TRANSITION ZONE.
_Pacific Fauna._
Monterey County (coast).
Monterey, Pacific Grove, Point Pinos, Carmel Bay.
San Francisco County.
San Francisco.

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA,
August 18, 1905.

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

THIRD SERIES

ZOOLOGY VOL. IV, NO. 3

_Issued December 2, 1905_

ON THE OCCURRENCE OF THE LEATHER-BACK
TURTLE, DERMOCHELYS, ON THE
COAST OF CALIFORNIA

BY JOHN VAN DENBURGH

_Curator of the Department of Herpetology_

PLATES IX-XI

Records of the occurrence of the great marine Leather-back Turtle in the Pacific Ocean are so few that any additional observations are of much interest. Temminck and Schlegel[19] report upon a specimen captured near the Bay of Nagasaki, Japan, in May, 1825. Mr. Swinhoe[20] saw a large one at Amoy, China, in October, 1859. Aflalo[21] has described a pair from Thursday Island, Queensland, Australia. Krefft[22] mentions an example nine feet long from the coast of New South Wales. McCoy[23] figures one caught at Portland, Victoria, Australia, in 1862. Another was harpooned by Captain Subritzky in the Bay of Islands, New Zealand, in May, 1892.[24] Boulenger[25] mentions a skull from the Solomon Islands. The species has been recorded from the coast of Chile by Molina[26] and Philippi,[27] and from Guaymas, Mexico, by Mr. Belding.[28]

[Footnote 19: Fauna Japonica, 1833, pp. 9, 12.]

[Footnote 20: Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1870, p. 410.]

[Footnote 21: Sketch Nat. Hist. Australia, p. 188.]

[Footnote 22: Austral. Vertebr. p. 39.]

[Footnote 23: Prodrom. Zool. Victoria, v. 2, 1885, p. 2.]

[Footnote 24: Cheeseman, Trans. New Zealand Inst. v. 25, 1893, p. 108.]

[Footnote 25: Cat. Chelon. Brit. Mus. 1889, p. 10.]

[Footnote 26: Essai sur l'Hist. Nat. du Chili, 1789, p. 194.]

[Footnote 27: Ann. Univ. Chile, v. 104, 1899, [separate pp. 3-6], pl.--.]

[Footnote 28: West Am. Scientist, v. 3, no. 24, 1887, p. 99.]

Thus it appears that the only record of the occurrence of the Leather-back Turtle in the waters of the western coast of the North American continent is the brief note by Mr. Belding in the West American Scientist, which reads as follows:

"I saw at Guaymas a Leather-back Turtle (Dermatochelys) which weighed 1,102 lbs."

I am now able to record the capture of three specimens of this turtle on the coast of California.

Early in January of the present year I received word that a large sea turtle had been caught near Santa Barbara, California, and at once arranged to purchase it for the Academy. A photograph (Plate IX) sent me at the time showed it to be a fine specimen of the Leather-back Turtle. Upon its arrival in San Francisco this turtle proved to be a female measuring six feet and seven inches from the tip of its snout to the end of its tail. Its weight was given on the bill of lading as 800 pounds, but this may have been estimated rather than actually determined. It was secured by Mr. G. W. Gourley and Albert F. Stafford, about January 2, in twenty-five fathoms of water in the open sea about two miles south of Santa Barbara.

Mr. Gourley has given me the following glowing account of its capture:

"SANTA BARBARA, CAL.,
"Jan. 17, 1905.

"_Dear Sir:_--Your note of 13th inst. received.... In regard to
the details of the capture I will say that the turtle was first
seen swimming on the surface about two miles off shore and to
the southwestward of the Santa Barbara whistling buoy. I went
after it (accompanied by a boy) in an 18 foot sailboat. I had
a gaff with a hook on the end of it and bent about 200 feet of
rope onto the handle. I had also prepared a number of other
ropes with nooses on them to be ready for quick work.

"On approaching the turtle it did not hear the wash of the boat
until we were within about 25 feet of it, when it made a rush
to windward and started to dive, but the momentum of the boat
when I luffed into the wind carried her right along side of him
and I dropped the tiller and got forward with the gaff-hook and
swung over the side in the weather rigging and got the hook fast
in the leathery part of his neck. He immediately sounded and
run out the full length of the line--about 200 feet--and towed
the boat about half a mile further out to sea. He then came to
the surface and we over-handed the line and pulled up close to
him again. When he caught sight of the boat he turned and came
toward us and threw one of his flippers over the gunwale of the
boat, nearly capsizing her.[29] I climbed up on the upper side
and shoved him off with an oar. He grabbed the end of the oar
and bit the end of it off like a piece of cheese. His movements
in the water were very swift; using his fore flipper he could
turn almost instantly from one side to the other and his head
would project about 18 inches from the body. I succeeded in
throwing a noose over his head and later by attracting his
attention in the opposite direction got ropes around both
flippers--finally having five lines on him--and started to tow
him toward the shore. He repeatedly slipped the ropes off from
his neck and flippers--several times getting almost entirely
free. We were from 11:30 A. M. till nearly 4 P. M. in finally
landing him. When about half way to shore he suddenly turned and
made a break out to sea, towing the boat stern first with all
sail drawing full for several hundred yards with little effort.
He emitted at intervals a noise resembling the grunt of a wild
boar. There were (when we first tackled him) about a dozen
ramoras attached to different parts of the body. Most of them
stayed with him all through the struggle and only deserted him
when I hoisted him to the deck of the dock. I captured two of
them and kept them in a bucket for several days. One was about
ten inches long. The turtle lived for four days after taking out
of the water--being very lively when first landed and gradually
subsiding. I don't think this species ever come out of the water
on their own responsibility.

"So far as I can learn there has been but one other of this kind
ever taken on this coast. It was less than half the size of
this and was entangled in a fisherman's net and was wounded in
capturing, so that it died soon after. The meat was sold to the
hotels here and was very fine eating.

"Respectfully,

"G. W. GOURLEY."

[Footnote 29: It is interesting to note the similarity of
the account given by Captain Subritzky of the capture of his
specimen, which is given by Cheeseman (Trans. New Zealand Inst.
v. 25, 1893, p. 109) as follows: "When passing Cape Brett
on a voyage from Awanui to Auckland, he noticed a floating
object, which he at first took for a boat bottom upwards. The
schooner's boat was lowered, and he proceeded to inspect it;
when, to his astonishment, it suddenly disappeared, shortly
afterward reappearing a little distance further away. Returning
to his vessel, he secured a harpoon and line, and then pulled
cautiously up to the creature, soon recognizing it to be a
large turtle-like animal entirely new to him. After a little
manœuvering he succeeded in harpooning it in the neck.
According to him, it made a most determined resistance, making
for the boat open-mouthed, snapping its jaws violently. It
succeeded in getting its flappers over the side of the boat,
nearly capsizing it, but was stunned by a blow on the head,
towed alongside the schooner, and hoisted on board."]

Inquiry regarding the second specimen referred to in Mr. Gourley's letter finally resulted, through the kindness of Dr. Frank M. Anderson, in my securing from Mr. E. B. Hoyt of San Luis Obispo, a photograph of this turtle, taken soon after its death. Mr. Hoyt tells me that this photograph was taken by himself at Santa Barbara in July or August, 1901. It shows the animal covering more than half the length of the floor of a dray on which it was lying. This photograph is reproduced in Plate X.

The third individual of this species was preserved in the museum at Coronado, San Diego County, which I am told is now a thing of the past. All that I have been able to learn of its history is contained in the following note from Mrs. E. S. Newcomb, who was in charge of the collection:

"CORONADO, March 21, 1896.

"_Dear Sir_:--I am only posted in regard to one marine turtle,
which hangs in the entrance of our museum, and provokes various
witty remarks from the travelling public.... This turtle was
caught off Point Loma [San Diego Co.] by a fisherman, weight
800 lbs. He sold it to the market, where Prof. Ward recognized
the skin as belonging to the Harp or Lute turtle, and purchased
it for this museum. It has been here eight years. I am sorry my
information is so meagre, but it is the best I can give you.

"Yours sincerely,

"(MRS.) E. S. NEWCOMB."

With no material for comparison I am unable to form an opinion as to the identity or specific distinctness of the Leather-back Turtles of the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific oceans; but Distant's photograph of an individual from South Africa[30] certainly shows a style of coloration very different from that seen in those reproduced here.

A view of the superior surface of the hyoid is given (Plate XI) which makes it evident that the specimen figured by Gervais[31] was incomplete.

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA,
August 4, 1905.

[Footnote 30: Distant, Zoologist, 4th ser. v. 2, 1898, p. 500.]

[Footnote 31: Gervais, N. Arch. Mus. v. 8, 1872, pl. VII, fig. 2.]

EXPLANATION OF PLATE IX.

Photograph of Leather-back Turtle captured at Santa Barbara,
California, January, 1905.

PROC. CAL. ACAD. SCI. 3^{D}. SER. ZOOL. VOL. IV.

[VAN DENBURGH] PLATE IX.
]

EXPLANATION OF PLATE X.

Photograph of Leather-back Turtle captured at Santa Barbara,
California, in July or August, 1901.

PROC. CAL. ACAD. SCI. 3^{D}. SER. ZOOL. VOL. IV.

[VAN DENBURGH] PLATE X.
]

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XI.

Hyoid of Leather-back Turtle captured at Santa Barbara,
California, January, 1905.

PROC. CAL. ACAD. SCI. 3^{D}. SER. ZOOL. VOL. IV.

[VAN DENBURGH] PLATE XI.
]

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

THIRD SERIES

ZOOLOGY VOL. IV, NO. 4[32]

_Issued March 14, 1906_

[Footnote 32: NOTE.--Only a few copies of the original
edition of this paper (Third Series, Vol. IV, Nos. 4 and 5,
Zoology, pp. 61-67) had been distributed prior to the great fire of
April 18, 1906, in which practically the entire edition was lost.
To enable libraries and individuals to complete their files of the
Proceedings this _exact reprint_ is issued

March 26, 1915.

BARTON W. EVERMANN, _Editor_.]

DESCRIPTION OF A NEW SPECIES OF THE GENUS PLETHODON (PLETHODON
VANDYKEI) FROM MOUNT RAINIER, WASHINGTON

BY JOHN VAN DENBURGH

_Curator of the Department of Herpetology_

In a small collection of amphibians secured in Washington by Dr. Edwin Cooper Van Dyke, Curator of the Department of Entomology, is an apparently undescribed species of salamander, which I take pleasure in naming, in honor of its collector,

=Plethodon vandykei= sp. nov.

_Diagnosis._--Similar in general appearance to _Plethodon
intermedius_, but much larger and stouter; costal grooves 12-13;
toes and fingers webbed, only 2 phalanges of third and fourth
toes free; adpressed limbs separated by 1 costal interspace;
tail but slightly compressed; paratoid well developed; a dorsal
band, not red; lower surfaces black.

_Type._--Cal. Acad. Sci. No. 6910, Paradise Valley, Mt. Rainier
Park, Washington, Dr. E. C. Van Dyke, July 15-31, 1905.

_Description._--General form similar to _P. oregonensis_, but
body not quite so much flattened, tail less compressed, and
limbs shorter and stouter; tail cylindro-conic, somewhat
compressed in posterior half, nearly equal to length of head
and body; head depressed, about width of widest part of body;
snout broadly truncate from above, rounded in profile; eyes
moderate, smaller than in _P. oregonensis_, rather prominent,
separated anteriorly by nearly twice the length of the orbital
slit; nostrils small, near corners of snout, separated by
about their distance from pupil; subnasal groove descending
nearly to margin of lip; line of lip descending slightly below
corner of snout and ascending below posterior edge of orbit;
palatine _teeth_ in 2 slightly curved series beginning some
distance behind and a little internal to the internal nares,
converging obliquely backward, and scarcely separated on the
median line; parasphenoid teeth in 1 patch throughout, separated
from palatine teeth by an interval equal to distance from
nostril to edge of lip; internal nares rather small; tongue
large, ovate, not emarginate, attached along median line but
free laterally and for a short distance behind; neck a little
narrower than body, with large elongate parotoid gland divided
by a longitudinal groove running posteriorly and downward from
eye to gular fold, other grooves behind, above and in front
of parotoid; a groove along vertebral line; _costal grooves_
between limbs 12 on right, 13 on left, not continued to midline
either above or below; limbs a little shorter and stouter than
in _P. oregonensis_, anterior with 4 and posterior with 5
digits; digits rather short, with broad rounded ends each with
a terminal pad below, inner shortest, third longest, second
finger longer than fourth, second toe shorter than fourth which
is but little shorter than third; web well developed, extending
nearly to end of inner digits, 2 phalanges of third and fourth
toes free, feet very broadly palmate; tail slender, slightly
compressed in posterior two-thirds, with rather indefinite
grooves on proximal half; skin shiny, but roughened above and
laterally and pitted below by the mouths of small glands;
adpressed limbs separated by about the distance between 2 costal
grooves.

A broad band extends along the whole dorsal surface from the snout to the tip of the tail. In the alcoholic specimen this band is dark clay-color, dotted with black on the upper surface of the head. It is broadest on the back of the head and narrowest above the anus. The upper surfaces of the limbs and the side of the snout are clay-color dotted with black. A black line runs from the eye to the nostril. The hands and feet are black dotted with clay-color. The chin and central gular region are white with a few scattered black dots. The sides of the neck and the sides and lower surfaces of the body and tail are intense black with a few scattered whitish dots on the belly and sides of tail and with a zone of crowded white dots along the sides of the neck and body.

Snout to anus 60
Front of anus to end of tail 56
Width of head 9
Nostril to orbit 2
Snout to orbit 4
Snout to gular fold 13
Snout to fore limb 17
Gular fold to anus 47
Axilla to groin 34
Adpressed limbs separated by 3
Fore limb 15½
Hind limb 18½
Heel to end of longest toe 7
Breadth of foot 6

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA,
December 21, 1905.

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

THIRD SERIES

ZOOLOGY VOL. IV, NO. 5

_Issued March 14, 1906_

ON THE OCCURRENCE OF THE SPOTTED NIGHT
SNAKE, HYPSIGLENA OCHRORHYNCHUS, IN
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA; AND ON THE
SHAPE OF THE PUPIL IN THE
REPTILIAN GENUS ARIZONA

BY JOHN VAN DENBURGH

_Curator of the Department of Herpetology_

ON THE OCCURRENCE OF THE SPOTTED NIGHT SNAKE, HYPSIGLENA
OCHRORHYNCHUS, IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA

The little snake to which Cope, in 1860,[33] gave the name _Hypsiglena ochrorhynchus_ was first described from specimens secured at Cape San Lucas, Lower California. It has since been found to range across Arizona and northern Mexico to Texas. As recently as 1893, so little was known of the distribution of this snake in California that Dr. Stejneger,[34] in recording the single specimen secured by the Death Valley Expedition in the Argus Range, Inyo County, California, thought that it added a species to the known fauna of the State. This snake had, however, already been taken at San Diego, California, as mentioned by Professor Cope[35] in 1883. More recently, the species has been recorded by Cope[36] from Witch Creek, San Diego County, and by myself[37] from the Cuyamaca Mountains, San Diego County; Strawberry Valley and San Jacinto, Riverside County, and Hesperia, San Bernardino County.

[Footnote 33: Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1860, p. 246.]

[Footnote 34: N. A. Fauna, no. 7, 1893, p. 204.]

[Footnote 35: Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1883, p. 32.]

[Footnote 36: Report, U. S. Nat. Mus. 1898 (1900), p. 954.]

[Footnote 37: Occas. Papers, Cal. Acad. Sci. 5, 1897, p. 180.]

These localities are all in the Desert and San Diegan faunal areas. It was with much interest, therefore, that I found this snake in the Californian Fauna close to the edge of the Pacific Fauna. The specimen was secured near Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, several hundred miles beyond the range of the species as previously known. It was found under a pile of recently cut hay, at an altitude of about eight or nine hundred feet, in what is locally known as the warm belt of the foothills, where _Bascanion laterale_, _Cnemidophorus tigris undulates_, and _Amphispiza belli_ also occur.

ON THE SHAPE OF THE PUPIL IN THE REPTILIAN GENUS ARIZONA

There has been, among herpetologists, much diversity of opinion as to the merits of Kennicott's genus _Arizona_. The validity of the single species for which he proposed the name _Arizona elegans_ has, I believe, never been questioned, but the known generic characters have been rather inadequate. Accordingly, while some authors have followed Kennicott, others have referred the species variously to the genera _Pituophis_ of Holbrook, _Rhinechis_ of Michahelles, or _Coluber_ of Linnæus.

I believe that all authors (myself included) who mention the point at all describe the eye of this snake as showing a round pupil. This is true of most alcoholic specimens, for in these the pupil usually is dilated. In two living specimens, however, I find that the pupil is slightly irregular in outline so that it appears somewhat eccentric, that it varies considerably in size from time to time, and that it is distinctly elliptic, with the long diameter vertical, but becomes nearly round when dilated. Some alcoholic specimens also show the pupil somewhat contracted and elliptic.

This point is of some importance, since the possession of a vertically elongate pupil is in itself ample basis for the recognition of the genus _Arizona_ as distinct from the other colubrine genera with which it has been confused.

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA,
February 24, 1906.

Transcriber's Notes:

1. Pages 20, 25: The spelling of Reëxamination/reëxamination has been left
with the dieresis.

2. Italics are shown as _text_ and bold as =text=.

3. Page 19, 20: The fraction 2/2 has been retained as such.

4. Carat numbers/letters have been retained with the carat symbol to
represent an upper position.

5. Page 61: There is a date in the middle of a paragraph which does
not seem to pertain to anything. This has been removed.