52 



whicli tny collector obtained at Duirat, Tunisia, and another 

 in Mr. Blanford's collection from Karman, S.E. Persia. As a 

 rule, the upper prseocular is in contact with the frontal, but in 

 both of these specimens it is excluded, except ou the right side in 

 the male. They have the usual markings. 



Tarbophis guenthebi, Anderson. 



Tarhophis guentheri, Anderson, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1895, p. 656, 

 pi. xxxvi. fig. 3. 



2 $. 



The details of the external characters of these two specimens 

 are given in the paper quoted above. 



The specimen on which Forskal founded Coluber dJiara^ had 

 a mutilated tail, with only 48 scutes ; but the number of its 

 ventral.^, 235, and the description as a whole, suggest the 

 possibility tiiat T. guentlieri, Anders., may be the same species. 

 I think it, however, more probable that G. obtusus, E,euss, is 

 C. dlmra^ Forskal, as the specimen from near Medina, which is 

 not far off from Yemen, mentioned on p. 62 agrees with typical 

 C. obtusus, Eeuss, from Egypt. Unfortunately in Forskal's 

 account there is no mention of the condition of the anal, and 

 no information regarding the labials that entered the orbit. 



CffiLOPELTIS MOILENSIS, EcuSS. 



Coelopeltis moilensis, Eeuss, Anderson, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1895, 

 p. 656. 



1 6 and 1 $ . 



' Descr. Animal. 177J, p. 14. 



Broadly excluded. 



