682 JOUBNAL, BOMBAY NATURiL HIST. SOCIETY, Vol XXVI. 



little blood showed. I incised the wound well with a Laudor-Brunton 

 lancet and rubbed in Permanganate of Potash Crystals for some minutes, 

 with ligature above wrist. The boy only complained of some pain up as 

 far as shoulder, but this may have been the effects of the ligature. He was 

 alright next morning. I sent at once for the snake which they had killed, 

 and it proved to be a Lachesis monticola. About lo inches long, it was under 

 a stone which the boy was removing. 



A. WPtlGHT. 

 Gyabaki, D. H. Ey., 

 10//i October 1918. 



No. XXXVI.— IJEMARKS ON COL. WALL'S IDENTIFICATION 

 OF HYDROPHIS CYANOCINCTUS. 



In the last number of this Journal (XXV. 4, p. 754), Col. Wall has 

 given details of some sea snakes — a gravid female and four others — which 

 1 sent to the Society's Museum about two years ago. At the time they 

 were identified by me as H. tuherculatus, Anderson. Col. AVall now states. 

 in his article that he considers them to be H. cyanocinctus, a diagnosis with 

 which I cannot agree at all. 



It is now nearly six years since I obtained the first specimen of this 

 snake, and being then unable to identify it with any description, sent it to 

 Mr. Boulenger for his opinion. " He considered it to be H. iuberculatus, but 

 as far as I am aware he had no specimen for comparison, the type and only 

 one then known being in the Indian Museum. What is evident, however, 

 13 that he did not consider it to be cyanocinctus, and this view was confirm- 

 ed later in a second specimen. (Jnl., Nat. Hist. Soc, Siam., 1.4.247). 

 Col. Wall on the other hand who has examined the type of H. Uiberculatus,. 

 lias pronounced it to be an undoubted cymwcinctns [vide Monograph, 

 p. 220). 



I very naturally therefore wished to examine this type for myself, and 

 last year through the kindness of Dr. Annandale I A\as able to do so. I 

 had no hesitation in agreeing with Col. Wall that it was a cyanocinctiis. 

 At the same time I felt equally sure that my own snake was not, and 

 being therefore unknown to science I described it under the name of 

 H. simnensis .]■ 



I had then a large series of them, together with typical cyanocinctus, 

 for comparison, both species being common in the Gulf of Siam. Col. 

 Wall's article is dated December, and at the time he wrote if he could not 

 have seen my description. In any case he could not have known i had 

 renamed the snake, as in my preliminary notice I have given no synonymy. 



Col. Wall has given eight reasons to support his diagnosis and 1 will 

 take them in their order. With Nos. 2, 3 and 5 I agree, but that fact 

 does not in any way influence my decision. 



"1. Because the number of the costal rows accords with the range 

 given in Boulenger's description in his Catalogue, Vol. Ill, p. 295." 



I cannot follow Col. Wall in his argument here. The range given by 

 Boulenger is 27 to 33 round the neck, 39 to 45 round the body. Yet the- 

 range recorded by Col. Wall for my 13 specimens is, 31 to 35 round the* 

 neck, 35 to 39 round the body ; 39 in fact, Boulenger's minimum count, ift 

 reach only 3 times in the series. 



• This specimen is still in the British Museum of Natural History. 

 t Preliminary diag-noses of four new sea snakes — Jrnl. Nat. Hist. Soc Siam. 

 II, 4, p. 340, Dec. 1918. 



