Part 4

_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.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE X.

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

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XI.

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

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.