Barbour and Carr (1940:129) wrote of _inexpectatus_ in the vicinity of Miami, Florida: "... it seems to be the only one [of the five-lined skinks] which has adapted itself to life under the rather specialized environmental conditions existing in its rocky and decidedly tropical habitat. It is one of the very few forms which have established themselves on some of the waterless and poorly vegetated islands on both coasts of the peninsula. _E. inexpectatus_ is much less arboreal than either _laticeps_ or _fasciatus_. Although it climbs trees when pressed, it is usually found on the ground among leaves or about fallen logs, and particularly about stone walls or old buildings made of cut rock." On the other hand, Neill (1948a:157) states that in Georgia, _inexpectatus_ is often observed basking on tree trunks, and though adults often forage on the ground, they dash for the nearest tree when disturbed, usually climbing to a considerable height before halting. The juveniles, however, are said to climb only rarely; they hide beneath objects on the ground when they are pursued. Neill stated that _E. inexpectatus_ occurs in dry pine forests where _laticeps_ and _fasciatus_ are lacking, as well as in moist or even swampy woods. _E. inexpectatus_ often forages on the sides of old buildings. Hoffman (1953:172), in discussing means of differentiating between _inexpectatus_ and _fasciatus_ in Virginia, states that there are ample differences in color and behavior as well as in scalation. He describes the color difference (blue color of tail of juveniles extending anteriorly beyond pelvis; light stripes reddish-orange on head, sublateral line present, in _inexpectatus_) but he does not describe the differences in behavior. He states that _inexpectatus_ is the most abundant lizard in southeastern Virginia. Carr (1940:76) also states that _inexpectatus_ is less arboreal than _laticeps_ and is often found under logs and boards in dry sand. _E. inexpectatus_ thus seems to be adapted to a somewhat drier, more open, habitat than that typical of _fasciatus_, but it is not clear whether either species is more arboreal in habits. It is to be hoped that the present inconclusive summary will draw attention to the problem and will lead to more critical comparisons of the habitats and behavior of the two species by herpetologists in the southeastern states. The differences, both ecological and morphological, that distinguish _inexpectatus_ from _fasciatus_ are of a degree usually found between subspecies of the same species. The extensive geographic overlap between them is indeed remarkable in view of the slight degree of differentiation, morphologically and ecologically. They are, however, complementary in part in their ranges, while _laticeps_ shares all parts of its range with either one or the other, or both of them (see Figures 4 and 5).