MICHIGAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE. 117 



Heterodon platyrhinus Latreille. The status of the Hog-nosed Snake in 

 the State is ([uestionable. Smith -^ has recorded it from Ann Arbor; Gi):)bs, 

 Notestein and Clark " Hst it from Wayne, Kalamazoo, Xnn J^uren, Allegan 

 and Barry counties, and Notestein' states that it is "([iiite common in 

 Michigan." Smith's record for Ann Arbor must be held in question, as the 

 sjiecimen is not in the Museum, and none have since been taken in this 

 vicinity. The county records of Gibbs, Notestein and Clark are proV)ably 

 authentic, but, as these writers fail to state the source of the original records, 

 the determinations cannot be verified, unless one is willing to accept the 

 statement in the introduction to their paper that their list "contains all 

 sjiecies whose occurrence has been verified and vouched for by at least one 

 of us." It nuist l)e said, Irowever, that in view of the preference of this 

 snake for dry sandy habitats we should ex])ect to find it along this (western) 

 coast of Michigan. Notestein's statement that it is common in Michigan 

 is certainly not true, if we take it that he means generally throughout the 

 State or even in the southern peninsula, for we have failed to find it at 

 Ann Arbor, Clark ■* does not record it from Eaton county, and, so far as 

 known to the writer, it has never been recorded from the northern peninsula. 



In view of this uncertainty concerning the occurrence of the Hog-nosed 

 Snake in the State, the following data that has accumulated at the University 

 of Michigan Museum during the past few years is of interest: In 1903 Prof. 

 Jacob Reighard and Mr. N. A. AVood, of the University of ^Michigan, while 

 on a collecting trip, captured a Hog-nosed Snake on the Au Sable River, 

 about six miles al)ove McKinley, Oscoda county. This specimen- subse- 

 quently escaped. Mr. P. A. Taverner, Highland Park, Michigan, has also 

 informed me that he has seen a specimen at Pearl Beach, St. Clair county. 

 (The \\riter may add that Mr. Taverner is perfectly familiar with this snake.) 

 Even more satisfactory than these records by reliable observers are the 

 specimens which have been obtained. The biological survey of 1908 found 

 it to be not uncommon along the south shore of Saginaw Bay (Huron county), 

 and l)rought ])ack a number of specimens. During the same summer Miss 

 Crystal Thompson, University of Michigan, captured one at Port Austin, 

 and another has recently been received from Miss Cora Reeves, that was 

 taken near Manistee, Manistee county. Few as these records are they seem 

 to indicate that the species occurs in the sandy "areas along ])oth. coasts of 

 the State. 



Chrysemys belli i (Gray). Recently in working over the Michigan turtles in 

 the collection of the University Museum, the writer has found that he erred 

 in classing Porcupine Mountain specimens as C. marginata in 1905 and 1906. ^ 

 C. marginata has thus far been taken only in the southern peninsula, the 

 northern peninsula specimens in the collection (all from the Porcupine 

 Mountains) being C. hellii. These turtles are superficially very similar, 

 but C. hellii may be distinguished from C. marginata by the very large size 

 of the plastral blotch, and l>y the presence of light lines on the costal and 

 vertebral scutes. In C. marginata also the costal and vertebral scutes have 

 quite constantly rather regular yellow margins, which in C. hellii are usually 

 wanting, or when ])resent are much more irregular than in the eastern form. 

 Ann Arbor, April 1, 1909. 



^Supplement to Science News, \o\. 1. No. 2.3, p. \\. ' 



'^Seventh .Vnnual Report Michigan Acaileniy of Science, \y. 110. 

 'Seventli Animal Report Micliigan .\cadein.v of Science, p. 118. 

 "Fourtli .\ninial Report .MicliiKan .Academy of .Science, pp. 192-194. 



"Sixtli .Annual Report .Micliigan .Academy of Science, p. 191. Micliigan Geological Sur\ey, .Annual 

 Report, 1905, p. 112. 



