• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Introduction
 Acknowledgement
 Analysis of characters
 Discussion
 Eumeces egregius similis, subsp....
 Intergradation
 Relationships
 Summary
 Specimens examined
 Literature cited
 Back Cover






Title: Subspecies of Eumeces egregius (FSM Bulletin)
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00002262/00001
 Material Information
Title: Subspecies of Eumeces egregius (FSM Bulletin)
Series Title: Subspecies of Eumeces egregius (FSM Bulletin)
Physical Description: Book
Creator: McConkey, Edwin H.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00002262
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltqf - AAA2587
ltuf - ACK0916
alephbibnum - 000440450
 Related Items
Other version: Alternate version (PALMM)
PALMM Version

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Introduction
        Page 13
    Acknowledgement
        Page 14
    Analysis of characters
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Discussion
        Page 17
    Eumeces egregius similis, subsp. nov.
        Page 17
    Intergradation
        Page 18
        Page 19
    Relationships
        Page 20
    Summary
        Page 21
    Specimens examined
        Page 22
    Literature cited
        Page 22
        Page 23
    Back Cover
        Page 24
Full Text
44 2. %
BULLET
OF THE
FLORIDA STATE
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 1
Number 1
THE SUBSPECIES OF EUMECES EGREGIUS, A LIZARD OF THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
Edwin H. McConkey
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Gainesville 1957


The numbers of THE BULLETIN OF THE FLORIDA STATE MUSEUM, BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, will lie published al irregular intervals. Volumes will contain about 300 pages and will not necessarily be completed in any one calendar year.
62 0 l
n
SCUHCE LIBRARY
William J. Riemcr, Editor Roland F. Hussey, Associnte Editor
3 1262 04279 7893
All communications concerning purchase or exchange of the publication should be addressed to the Curator of Biological Sciences. Florida State Museum, Seaglc Building. Gainesville, Florida. Manuscripts should be sent to the Editor of the BULLETIN. Flint Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Published June JO, 1957
Price for this issue $.20


THE SUBSPECIES OE EUMECES EGREGIUS, A LIZARD OE THE SOU THE ASTERN UNITED STATES
Edwin H. McConkky1
The red-tailed drinks of southeastern United States, despite their rarity in collections and inconspicuous place in herpetological literature, have had a history of taxonotuic vacillation and uncertainty. Plesliodon egregitis was described by Baird (1858) on the basis of an unstated number of specimens collected by G. Wurdemann on Indian Key, Florida. Cope (1871) used a single specimen from Brevard County, Florida, to name the species Plistodon onocrepis. He pointed out the relationship of onocrepis to egregitis and mentioned several characters by which the two might be "easily distinguished." Later (1900) he listed onocrepis as a synonym of egregius, giving no reason for the action. Subsequent writers used only the latter name until Taylor (1936) resurrected onocrepis as a subspecies of egregius. He indicated that the two forms might be specifically related but that it was impossible to come to any definite conclusions on the basis of the few specimens available to him. Carr (1940) reported that he had examined a number of specimens not available to Taylor and that he had found no egregius-onocrepis intermediates. Largely because of that, and the Fact that the two forms were thought to be sympatric, he restored lull specific rank to both. Smith (1946) concluded that, ". . the problem now is not whether the brown and striped red-tailed slunks are different species, but whether the northern striped specimens are the same as the southern ones . ." Schmidt (1953) expressed an opposing view by listing onocrepis as a race of egregius in the sixth edition of A Check List of North American Amphibians and Reptiles. The change was made without comment.
Since Taylor's monograph on Eumeces (1936), it has been apparent that the red-tailed skinks from southern Georgia and northern Florida were superficially more similar to specimens from the Florida Keys, at the other extreme of the range, than to specimens from the intervening peninsular area. The existence of specimens not available to previous writers makes possible a preliminary consideration of the relationships of the northern lizards. Data will also Ik- presented in support of the current listing of onocrepis as a trinomial.
The study reported on here was performed while the author was in (he Department of Biology, University of Florida. He is currently a doctoral student in the Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley. Manuscript submitted 31 July l!>!)(>.-Ei).
UNlVcRSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES


In die discussion that follows, trivial names used separately refer to subspecies; the binomial form Eumeees egregius refers to all of the southeastern red-tailed skinks. In the tables ami the associated discussion, reference is made to three populations. The term "northern population" refers to the red-tailed skinks inhabiting southern Georgia and Alabama, northern and western Florida; "central population" pertains to those from the peninsula of Florida, beginning at the symbols "1.2" on the map and extending, as far as is known, to the southern tip ol the peninsula; "southern population" includes those lizards occurring on the Florida Keys.
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my thanks to the following persons for the loan of specimens: Charles M. Bogert of the American Museum of Natural History (A.MNH); Ralph Chermock of the Department of Biology, University of Alabama (UA); Doris M. Cochran of the United States National Museum (USNM); John W. Crenshaw of the Department of Biology, Antioch College (JWC); Norman Hartweg of the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology (UMMZ); Arthur Loveridge of the Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ); Wilfred T. Neill of Ross Allen's Reptile Institute (ERA-WTN); M. Graham Netting of the Carnegie Museum (CM); and William J. Riemer of the University of Florida Collections (UF). The abbreviations in parentheses are used in the text to denote the respective collections.
Analysis of Characters
Several writers have stated that the scales of the two middorsal rows in Eumeees egregius are "distinctly enlarged," whereas those of onocrepis are not noticeably larger than the scales immediately lateral to them. In contrast, my observations indicate that this character does not vary with any geographical consistency. For example, a series of thirteen specimens collected at Silver Springs, Florida, contains six individuals with the scales of the middorsal rows distinctly enlarged, four with the scales not enlarged, anil three with an intermediate condition. Similarly, a series of fourteen specimens from Key West consists of six lizards with the scales of the middorsal rows distinctly enlarged, one in which the scales are not enlarged, and seven that cannot be assigned to either extreme. It is unlikely that one could demonstrate


In die discussion that follows, trivial names used separately refer to subspecies; the binomial form Eumeees egregius refers to all of the southeastern red-tailed skinks. In the tables ami the associated discussion, reference is made to three populations. The term "northern population" refers to the red-tailed skinks inhabiting southern Georgia and Alabama, northern and western Florida; "central population" pertains to those from the peninsula of Florida, beginning at the symbols "1.2" on the map and extending, as far as is known, to the southern tip ol the peninsula; "southern population" includes those lizards occurring on the Florida Keys.
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my thanks to the following persons for the loan of specimens: Charles M. Bogert of the American Museum of Natural History (A.MNH); Ralph Chermock of the Department of Biology, University of Alabama (UA); Doris M. Cochran of the United States National Museum (USNM); John W. Crenshaw of the Department of Biology, Antioch College (JWC); Norman Hartweg of the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology (UMMZ); Arthur Loveridge of the Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ); Wilfred T. Neill of Ross Allen's Reptile Institute (ERA-WTN); M. Graham Netting of the Carnegie Museum (CM); and William J. Riemer of the University of Florida Collections (UF). The abbreviations in parentheses are used in the text to denote the respective collections.
Analysis of Characters
Several writers have stated that the scales of the two middorsal rows in Eumeees egregius are "distinctly enlarged," whereas those of onocrepis are not noticeably larger than the scales immediately lateral to them. In contrast, my observations indicate that this character does not vary with any geographical consistency. For example, a series of thirteen specimens collected at Silver Springs, Florida, contains six individuals with the scales of the middorsal rows distinctly enlarged, four with the scales not enlarged, anil three with an intermediate condition. Similarly, a series of fourteen specimens from Key West consists of six lizards with the scales of the middorsal rows distinctly enlarged, one in which the scales are not enlarged, and seven that cannot be assigned to either extreme. It is unlikely that one could demonstrate


the existence of any difference in the relative size of the scales of the middorsal rows using the samples of red-tailed skinks presently available. Furthermore, the likelihood that such a character might be variously interpreted makes it impractical for taxonomic purposes.
Eumeees egregius characteristically possesses two pairs of white stri|>es visible on at least the anterior third of the body. Their location may lie described conveniently by numbering the longitudinal scale rows of the back and sides, l>eginning at the middorsal line and proceeding laterally in both directions. In some individuals the dorsolateral pair of white stripes occupies the middle of the second scale row of each side anteriorly, and continues in that row as far as the base of the tail; in others the stripes diverge as they proceed posteriorly, coming to occupy the middle of the third scale row of each side in the region of the groin. Several previous writers have claimed that diverging dorsolateral stripes are restricted to onocrepis and that the opposite condition is found only in egregitis. 'I able 1 presents data on this character. The quantities in each category represent the nuin-!>er of specimens. Unfortunately there is often a rapid decrease in intensity of the light stripes posteriorly, particularly in preserved individuals, so that it becomes impossible to determine whether divergence occurs. Specimens of this type are listed as "questionable" in the table.
In contrast to the variable location of the dorsolateral markings, the lateral light stripes remain on the fifth scale rows throughout their length. Previous authors have indicated that in egregitis the lateral stripes are always discernible as far back as the groin, whereas in onocrepis they fade out anterior to that point. Table 2 presents data on this character. The quantities in each category represent the nuni-l>er of specimens. Certain badly faded s|>ccimens are listed as questionable.
Two useful characters that have not been reported on belore are the number of ventral scales (counted longitudinally from the first scale behind the chin shields to the anal plate) and the number of scales around the middle of the body. Data on these characters are presented in tables 3 and 1.
The data contained in tables I through I were analyzed and compared mathematically by the use of conventional chi-square and t-tests. If calculations indicated a probability of 0.05 or less that any given difference could be ascribed to chance, it was assumed that a significant diiference had been demonstrated. On this basis the northern


TABLE 1
TllE NATURE of i uk dorsolateral light strums in Euinrcrs egregius
Population Diverging Questionable Not diverging
Northern t) 1 in
Central 36 1 3
Southern 1 9 20
TABLE 2
I'llE NATl're OE the lateral light stripes ix EumeCCS rgregfUS
Population Reaching groin Questionable Not reaching groin
Northern 1 0 j
Central 19 1 in
Southern 28 1 1
TABLE 3
Number of ventral scales from CHIN TO anus in EltlllfCfS egreglUS
Standard error Observed Sample
Population Mean of mean range size
Northern 60.36 0.67 56-65 II
Central 57.91 0.28 53-62 57
.Southern 61.83 0.40 57-65 L".l
TABLE 4
Ni miur oe scales aroixd Minnom in Eumeees egregius
Sample
Population 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Mean size
Northern 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 20.00 II
Central .1 2 52 12 0 0 19.95 (>0
Southern 0 0 9 3 17 0 1 21.33 30
population cliIters from the central population in the divergence ot the dorsolateral stripes, the length of the lateral stripes, and the number of ventral scales; the central population differs from the southern population with regard to all four characters tabulated; and the northern


1957
McCONKKY: EUMIXES EC.REC.WS
17
population differs from the southern population in the number of scales around the middle of the body.
Discussion
The first question to consider is whether these three mathematically recognizable populations represent one, two, or three species. Since none of the characters considered serves to separate all individuals of any one population from all individuals of any other population, it is reasonable to conclude that the hypothesis of multiple species is not supported by the evidence presented.
It next becomes necessary to determine whether the observed differences are of sufficient magnitude to warrant subspecific recognition. The northern population may easily be distinguished from the central population by the nature of the dorsolateral stripes (93 percent of sample) or the number of ventral scales (76 percent of sample). The central population may be separated readily from the southern population by the number of ventral scales or the number of scales around the midbody (both 87 percent of sample). Were it not for the fact that the dorsolateral stripes of individuals from the southern population are frequently obliterated by preservation, this character could also be used to separate a high percentage of the central and southern animals.
The relationships of the northern and southern populations seem to be close. The only character in which they have been shown to differ by a statistically significant amount is the number of scales around the midbody. On the basis of this character all of the 11 available specimens of the northern population and 70 percent of the 30 specimens of the southern population were correctly identified. Combining the two samples results in a total ol 78 percent correct identification. The need for taxonomic recognition of the distinctness of these two populations is evident. Accordingly, three subspecies of red-tailed skinks may be recognized. Thai referred to above as the southern population should be known as Eumeees egregius egregius; the name E. e. onocrepis is available for the central population: and the northern population may be called:
F.l mixes egregius similis, Subsp. nov.
Diagnosis.A Eumeees egregius unique in the possession of twenty or fewer scales around the middle of the body in combination with dorsolateral light stripes that do not diverge posteriorly.


1957
McCONKKY: EUMIXES EC.REC.WS
17
population differs from the southern population in the number of scales around the middle of the body.
Discussion
The first question to consider is whether these three mathematically recognizable populations represent one, two, or three species. Since none of the characters considered serves to separate all individuals of any one population from all individuals of any other population, it is reasonable to conclude that the hypothesis of multiple species is not supported by the evidence presented.
It next becomes necessary to determine whether the observed differences are of sufficient magnitude to warrant subspecific recognition. The northern population may easily be distinguished from the central population by the nature of the dorsolateral stripes (93 percent of sample) or the number of ventral scales (76 percent of sample). The central population may be separated readily from the southern population by the number of ventral scales or the number of scales around the midbody (both 87 percent of sample). Were it not for the fact that the dorsolateral stripes of individuals from the southern population are frequently obliterated by preservation, this character could also be used to separate a high percentage of the central and southern animals.
The relationships of the northern and southern populations seem to be close. The only character in which they have been shown to differ by a statistically significant amount is the number of scales around the midbody. On the basis of this character all of the 11 available specimens of the northern population and 70 percent of the 30 specimens of the southern population were correctly identified. Combining the two samples results in a total ol 78 percent correct identification. The need for taxonomic recognition of the distinctness of these two populations is evident. Accordingly, three subspecies of red-tailed skinks may be recognized. Thai referred to above as the southern population should be known as Eumeees egregius egregius; the name E. e. onocrepis is available for the central population: and the northern population may be called:
F.l mixes egregius similis, Subsp. nov.
Diagnosis.A Eumeees egregius unique in the possession of twenty or fewer scales around the middle of the body in combination with dorsolateral light stripes that do not diverge posteriorly.


Hoi.otypk.-UF 7647, a female from the northwestern outskirts of Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia; collected March 29, 1939, by Wilfred T. Neill.
The holotype has sixty ventral scales from throat to anus, twenty scales around the midbody, nondiverging dorsolateral stripes, and lateral stripes extending to the groin. The tail is complete and is 74 millimeters long. The snout-vent length is 48 millimeters. On each side of the head there are six upper labials, five lower labials, and seven superciliaries. The specimen has no obvious irregularities of scaiation, no large blemishes, and no asymmetries that might be used for identification.
The name similis is a Latin word meaning "similar" and refers to the resemblance between this form and the subspecies egregius.
Intercradation
It is pertinent to consider the pattern characteristics of a sample of six Eumeces egregius collected within 300 yards of each other in an area of turkey oak and hawthorn scrub five miles west of Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida.
An obvious possibility for the arrangement of the light stripes in a mixed population of onocrepis and similis is that some individuals would have nondiverging dorsolateral stripes combined with lateral stripes that faded out before reaching the groin; others would have the opposite condition; and still others would present one of the patterns characteristic of unmixed populations. That is precisely the situation found (see table 5).
Another expression of intermediacy that might be expected is the possession of dorsolateral stripes that diverge one-half scale row on each side as they proceed posteriorly. UF 7654-1 has this condition. The dorsolateral stripes above the groin occupy the lower half of scale rows number two and the upper half of rows number three.
The number of ventral scales in a similis-onocrepis mixture might also be expected to average between the mean values for the two subspecies; the value for the mixed sample above is 58.00, those for onocrepis and similis are 57.91 and 60.36 respectively (see table 3). The presence of the extremely low count of 52 in one specimen may have caused a misleading picture of the true population mean.
Robert E. Hellman and Sam R. Telford recently discovered at Cedar Key, Levy County, Florida, a population of Eumeces egregius living in and about the piled-up tidal wrack that lines most of the


McClONKEY: HUM ECUS EGREGIUS
19
shore of the small Airstrip Island. See table 6 for the characteristics of nine specimens examined from this locality.
The ventrals average 58.99, a figure intermediate between the means for similis and onocrepis. The difference is not statistically demonstrable with the present small samples, but the figure is suggestive. The stripes of these specimens from Cedar Key arc vague, but a mixture of patterns seems to be indicated. There are indications that these li/ards average larger in size and have more black markings on the tail than do their mainland relatives of either subs|>ecies, but any taxonomic considerations based on such characters wotdd require more specimens from critical areas than have been available to me.


TABLE 5
Characteristics of a sample of Eumeees egregius from Alachua County, Florida
Number of Dorsolateral snipes Lateral stripes
Specimen ventral* diverge reach groin
UF 7653 in y no
7654-1 r.9 mi ves
7654-2 61 no yes
7652 -.'1 on yes
2873 52 mi no
2708 56 \CN yes
FABLE 6
Characteristics of a sample of Eumeees egregius from Levy County. Florida
Number of Dorsolateral stripes Lateral stripes
Specimen ventrals diverge reach groin
UF 3125-1 58 yes no
58 } no
3 58 yes yes
-4 50 ? no
-5 60 yes no
-6 60 yes yes
-7 r9 '- no
-8 57 yes yes
si til .* yes
For the present, I think it best to regard the Cedar Key population of Eumeees egregius as similis-onoerepis intermediates. Their location on an island, presumably isolated from other red-tailed skinks by several miles of salt marsh and swamp, adds to their attractiveness for further investigation.
The probable intergradation area of onocrepis and egregius is extreme southern Florida, an area from which no specimens are known. Anyone interested in obtaining red-tailed skinks from that region may find it worth while to examine the tidal wrack along the shore of Cape Sable.
Relationships
The evolutionary relationships of the three subspecies of Eumeees egregius present an intriguing and almost baffling problem. How is


it that similis and egregius resemble each other more closely than either resembles the geographically intermediate onocrepis? Several possibilities come to mind. Convergent evolution may account for the similarities, but in the absence of any well-established precedent, it seems prudent to look elsewhere for an explanation.
It may be that similis and egregius represent the remnants of a once continuous population that has been split by the development of onocrepis within its borders, but this explanation only raises more questions. The hypothesis that follows, although highly speculative, is offered for consideration.
Geologists are not in agreement as to the details of Florida's geography during the various interglacial periods, but it is reasonably well established that the peninsula was several times reduced to one or more islands. If one assumes that similis and egregius are less differentiated from the ancestral stock than is onocrepis, it is reasonable to postulate that the latter developed on an island during the last (Sangamon) interglacial stage. The recession of the seas during Wisconsin time would have permitted onocrepis to occupy the entire peninsula of Florida by following the expanding shore line. It then would have been fragmented into its present distribution gradually, as the former shores and beaches were modified by vegetational succession.
EgregiuSj I should like to suggest, developed its identity in situ on the Florida Keys, having reached there from the northern part of the state via the lowland region now formed primarily by the St. Johns and Kissimmee river valleys. Although this trough was probably 100 feet or more above sea level during the Wisconsin glaciation than it is at present, it seems likely that even then it was a drainage basin, vegeta-tionally different from the ridges that Hanked it on the east and west. The little that I know of the ecology of similis indicates that it is a much more vagile organism than is onocrepis, which appears to be restricted to the high pineturkey oak and scrub associations. I have seen similis collected in a very damp locality between a flatwoods and a hammock in west Florida, as well as in the dry situations mentioned above. 11, at the time of the last glaciers, the eastern Florida lowlands were sufficiently different ecologically from the neighboring ridges, they might have formed a highway down which similis could have traveled to the end of the peninsula and to the Keys.
Summary
The red-tailed skinks of the southeastern United States, Eumeces


egregitis, are shown to belong to three subspecifically differentiated populations. The new name similis is proposed for the population inhabiting northern Florida, southern Georgia, and Alabama; onocrepis pertains to the peninsular race; and egregius is restricted to the population on the Florida Keys. A population in Alachua County is demonstrated to be intermediate between similis and onocrepis, and it is suggested that the red-tailed lizards at Cedar Key in Levy County, Florida, may also be intergrades. The evolutionary relationships of the several forms are considered, and a hypothesis is presented to account for the present distribution.
Specimens Examined
Eumkcks egregius egregius.Florida. Monroe Count). Key West: MCZ 44754, 31904. 6152(2); USNM 85259-260; CM 6217-248; UF 1839; UMMZ 95576(14). Big Pine Key: USNM 125130. 95805, 61692. Upper Matccumbc Key: USNM 95752-753; UMMZ 102216. Key Largo: UMMZ 102538. Dry Tormgas: MCZ 978.
Eumeces egregius onocrepis.Florida. No specific locality: MCZ 28386; AMNTI 1521. Brevard County: MCZ 10-141; CM 1678; USNM 12002(3). 13700. Broward County: USNM 85261. Citrus County: UF 1866. Dade County: MCZ 43110: USNM 263(H). 32097-98, 85258. Hernando County: MCZ 29361. Lake County: MCZ 10064-65, 10771; USNM 75294-296. 19980-981, 69657. 56982; UMMZ 79589, 50150. Marion County: MCZ 13146-149, 44755-756; CM 27455; USNM 103512; ERA-VVTN unnumbered (18). Orange County: UF 306. Palm Beach County: UMMZ 86423. Pinellas County: MCZ 12851-853. Polk County: USNM 48744, 49738. 60515-516. Sarasota County: CM 27452-454. Volusia County: MCZ 14464.
Eumeces egregius onocrepis X similis.Florida. Alachua County: CM 17111: AMNH 68877-878; UMMZ 57725; UF 6-1 (2). 2873. 2708, 7652-654. Clay County: CM 23444. Levy County: UF 3125(9).
Eumeces egregius similis.Alabama. Baldwin County: UA 49-408(1). Florida. Columbia County: UF 7651. Duval County: AMNH 22423. Leon County: UF 1741 (2). Jackson County: UF 2652. Georgia. Baker County: JWC 613. Richmond County: UF 7647-649. 7650(2).
Literature Cited
Bairu, s. f.
1858. Description of new genera and species of North American lizards in the museum of ihe Smithsonian Institution. Proc Acad. Nat. Sci.. Philadelphia, vol. 10, pp. 253-6.
Carr, A. F Jr.
1940. A contribution to the herpetology of Florida. Univ. Florida Publ., Biol. Series, vol. 3, no. I, pp. 1-118.


egregitis, are shown to belong to three subspecifically differentiated populations. The new name similis is proposed for the population inhabiting northern Florida, southern Georgia, and Alabama; onocrepis pertains to the peninsular race; and egregius is restricted to the population on the Florida Keys. A population in Alachua County is demonstrated to be intermediate between similis and onocrepis, and it is suggested that the red-tailed lizards at Cedar Key in Levy County, Florida, may also be intergrades. The evolutionary relationships of the several forms are considered, and a hypothesis is presented to account for the present distribution.
Specimens Examined
Eumkcks egregius egregius.Florida. Monroe Count). Key West: MCZ 44754, 31904. 6152(2); USNM 85259-260; CM 6217-248; UF 1839; UMMZ 95576(14). Big Pine Key: USNM 125130. 95805, 61692. Upper Matccumbc Key: USNM 95752-753; UMMZ 102216. Key Largo: UMMZ 102538. Dry Tormgas: MCZ 978.
Eumeces egregius onocrepis.Florida. No specific locality: MCZ 28386; AMNTI 1521. Brevard County: MCZ 10-141; CM 1678; USNM 12002(3). 13700. Broward County: USNM 85261. Citrus County: UF 1866. Dade County: MCZ 43110: USNM 263(H). 32097-98, 85258. Hernando County: MCZ 29361. Lake County: MCZ 10064-65, 10771; USNM 75294-296. 19980-981, 69657. 56982; UMMZ 79589, 50150. Marion County: MCZ 13146-149, 44755-756; CM 27455; USNM 103512; ERA-VVTN unnumbered (18). Orange County: UF 306. Palm Beach County: UMMZ 86423. Pinellas County: MCZ 12851-853. Polk County: USNM 48744, 49738. 60515-516. Sarasota County: CM 27452-454. Volusia County: MCZ 14464.
Eumeces egregius onocrepis X similis.Florida. Alachua County: CM 17111: AMNH 68877-878; UMMZ 57725; UF 6-1 (2). 2873. 2708, 7652-654. Clay County: CM 23444. Levy County: UF 3125(9).
Eumeces egregius similis.Alabama. Baldwin County: UA 49-408(1). Florida. Columbia County: UF 7651. Duval County: AMNH 22423. Leon County: UF 1741 (2). Jackson County: UF 2652. Georgia. Baker County: JWC 613. Richmond County: UF 7647-649. 7650(2).
Literature Cited
Bairu, s. f.
1858. Description of new genera and species of North American lizards in the museum of ihe Smithsonian Institution. Proc Acad. Nat. Sci.. Philadelphia, vol. 10, pp. 253-6.
Carr, A. F Jr.
1940. A contribution to the herpetology of Florida. Univ. Florida Publ., Biol. Series, vol. 3, no. I, pp. 1-118.


Cope, E. D.
1871. Catalogue of the Reptilia and Batrachia obtained by C. J. Maynard in Florida. Second and Third Ann. Rept. Pea body Acad. Sci. for 18(59-70. pp. 82-5.
1900. Crocodilians, lizards and snakes of North America. U.S. N'atl. Mus. Report for 1898. pp. 153-1270, pis. 1-3(5.
Schmidt, k. p.
1953. A check list of North American amphibians and reptiles. 6th cd. Airtcr. Soc. Ichthyologists and Hcrpetologists, pp. viii + 280.
Smith. H. M.
194(i. Handbook of lizards. Ithaca, N.Y.: Comstock, pp. xxii + 1-557. ligs. 1-13(5. pis. I-135, maps 1-11.
Taylor, E. H.
1936. A taxonomic study of the cosmopolitan scincoid lizards of the genus Eumeces, with an account of the distribution and relationships of the species. Univ. Kansas Sci. Hull., vol. 23, no. 1. pp. 11543. ligs. 1-84, pis. 1-43.


Contributions to the BULLETIN OF THE FLORIDA STATE MUSEUM may be in any field of biology. Manuscripts dealing with natural history or systematic problems involving the southeastern United States or the Caribbean area are solicited especially.
Manuscripts should be of medium length12 to 200 printed pages. Examination for suitability is made by an Editorial Board.
The BULLETIN is distributed worldwide through institutional subscriptions and exchanges only. It is considered the responsibility of the author to distribute his paper to all interested individuals. To aid in this, fifty copies are furnished the author without cost.
Manuscripts should be typewritten with double spacing, with ample margins, and on only one side of the paper. The author should keep a copy; the copy submitted must be the original. Tables, legends of figures, and all footnotes should be assembled on sheets separate from the text. Several legends or footnotes may be placed
Illustrations, including maps and photographs, should be referred to as "figures" wherever possible. All illustrations are reduced to a maximum of 4-1/4 by 7-1/8 inches. The scale, wherever it is necessary, should be incorporated into the figure. All references to literature should conform with the bibliographic style used in recent numbers of the BULLETIN. Spell out in full the titles of non-English serials.
Footnote material should be kept to a minimum. However, provide copy for a footnote detailing the title, affiliations, and address of the author (see recent numbers of the BULLETIN).
The scope of the paper should be stated in an introductory paragraph. A summary should be provided whenever appropriate. It should be complete in itself, and understandable without reference to the body of the article.
Manuscripts and all editorial matters should be addressed to:
Editor of the BULLETIN Flint Hall
University of Florida Gainesville, Florida
PREPARATION OF MANUSCRIPT
on a single sheet.


University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs