HERPELE. 30 
HERPELE. 
Herpele, Peters, MB. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1879, p. 939. 
Eyes hidden below the bones ; tentacle globular, in a circular pit, below and some- 
what behind the nostril. Rudimentary scales imbedded in the skin near the folds. 
Mandibulary teeth in two series. 
1. Herpele ochrocephala. 
Cecilia ochrocephala, Cope, Proc. Ac. N. Sc. Philad. 1866, p. 132; Brocchi, Miss. Sc. Mex., Batr, 
p- 119, t. 21. fig. 1. 
Herpele ochrocephala, Cope, Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. xxii. p. 279 (1885); Bouleng. P. Z. S. 1895, 
p. 409. 
Cecilia polyzona, Fischer, in Peters, MB. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1879, p. 937; Arch. fiir Naturg. 
1880, p. 215, t. 8. figg. 1-4; Bouleng. P. Z. S. 1895, p. 407. 
Hab. Panama (Cope, Mus. Brit.).—Conompta. 
Habit slender, the circumference of the body being contained from 15 to 19 times in 
its length. Snout narrow, projecting. 200-209 circular folds, nearly all complete. 
The inner mandibulary series formed by 10-12 teeth. ‘Tentacle at the lower side of 
the snout. Yellowish-plumbeous, with the folds darker, and with the head of a 
lighter colour. 
Fischer Fischer Fischer Panama 
No. 1. No. 2. Cope. in B.M. in B.M. 
Total length . . . 675 millim. 650 millim. 325 millim. 565 millim. 450 millim. 
Circumference . . 37 ,, 33 Cy, _ 382, 30 =" 
Diameter . . . . 11 = ,, lls, C4, 16 ,, 9 
The identification of Fischer’s Cecilia polyzona with Cope’s Herpele ochrocephala 
requires explanation. ‘There are two specimens in the Natural History Museum, one 
of which is determined as Cope’s species, the description by that author well agreeing 
with it. ‘The other, although a little more slender, clearly belongs to the same species, 
but it has been received from Fischer’s collection, a portion of which was purchased in 
| 1887, after his death, under the name of C. polyzona. There can be no doubt that it was 
so named by him, although it was not one of the two typical specimens from Caceres. 
Fischer himself says that his species appeared to be closely allied to Cope’s 
H. ochrocephala; but he was misled by the latter’s statement that the proportions of 
this C. ochrocephala were near to those of Siphonops mexicanus, which, in fact, is one 
of the most robust species of the order. It is more surprising that Peters should have 
failed to recognize the pertinence of C. polyzona to his genus Herpele. But on 
comparing the accounts given by Peters and Fischer (1879 and 1880) I come to the 
conclusion that Peters had received from Fischer only the diagnosis, but not the 
specimens, when he read his paper before the Berlin Academy, and that he did not 
