400 .»«'*>$ Red Viper {Coluber chersea L.). 



than in the common viper ; but both species agree in the 

 arrangement of the scales, having three scuta larger than the 

 rest on the crown of the head, namely, one between the eyes, 

 and two others immediately behind it. They have also a 

 large scale over each eyebrow. The body of the red viper 

 is more cylindrical than the common one, which is some- 

 what flat beneath. The belly, instead of being steel-coloured, 

 is ferruginous, like the back. 



Linnaeus has correctly described this species in the Swedish 

 Transactions, where he gives 9 J in. as the length. He 

 states the abdominal scuta at 150 ; the caudal pairs at thirty- 

 four. My specimen has 150 of the former, and thirty-two 

 of the latter : it is, however, well known that these numbers 

 are liable to vary in the serpent tribe. Among other cha- 

 racters, Linnaeus notices a small dark speck on the tip of the 

 tail, which is very distinct in my specimen. I have, how- 

 ever, observed this speck, though less strongly marked, in 

 the common viper. I may here add the authority of Cuvier 

 in favour of this species being distinct. (See Le Regne 

 Animal, vol. ii. p. 92.) It would seem, however, that he 

 was unacquainted with our common English viper, and that 

 his " vipere commune " is unknown in this country, as he 

 classes the latter in a section of the genus ^ipera, in which 

 the head is uniformly covered with small granular scales ; 

 whereas the common viper of England agrees with the red 

 viper in having three scuta larger than the rest on the top of 

 the head ; a character on which he forms another section. 



The red viper is known to the inhabitants of Worcester- 

 shire under that name, and has the reputation of being very 

 venomous. It is certainly a rare species, and I have never 

 been able to procure any more than the above-mentioned 

 specimen. . x ft ve { 9f k 



I have thus stated the claims of the red viper to be con- 

 sidered a distinct species, and I hope the observations of 

 your readers will confirm those claims. To facilitate their 

 investigation of the subject, I have appended the references 

 to different authors on the subject, distinguishing those 

 which are copied from those which I have myself ascertained. 



Fipera chersea. — Coluber chersea, " Lin. Act. Stockholm. 1749, pi. 6.;" 

 " Fauna Suecica, p. 285. ; " Syst. Nat. p. 377. ; " Weigel. Abhand. der 

 Hall. Naturf. vol. i. p. 12. ; " Rackett, Lin. Trans, vol. xii. p. 349. Coluber 

 ^erus, " Laurenti Kept. p. 97. pi. 2. f.l.;" " Daudin, Kept." . Pelia* 

 I?ems, " Merrem." Fipera J5erus, " Fitzinger." Fipera chersea, Cuv. 

 Reg. An. vol. ii. p. 92. Coluber i?erus var. , Fleming, Brit. An. p. 157. ; 

 « Leach, Zool. Mis. vol. iii." 



jstfrt9V9 l am > Sir, yours, &c. 



Worcestershire, Hugh E. Strickland. 



