296 JO ORNAL, BOMB A Y NA TUBAL HISTOR Y SOCIETY, Vol. XIX. 



heads- lengths before anus ] 5 ; vertebrals not enlarged ; last row 

 slightly if at all enlarged ; keels absent everywhere ; apical -pih 

 absent. Ventrals. — 175 to 190 (in my Burmese specimens), 180 to 

 196 (Flower gives for specimens from Siam), 166 to 193 (Bou- 

 lenger) ; not very broad, being but twice the breadth of the last 

 costal row and at least two of the last costal rows are visible on each 

 side when the snake is laid over on its back. Anal. — Divided. 

 Svhcaudals. — The 1st or 2nd entire followed by from 24 to 31 paired 

 shields. 



Aiiomalies. — The postocular is single in some specimens. 



Dentition. — The prcema.rilla carries 10 small teeth, 5 on each side. 



The maxilla supports about 38 small subequal teeth. 



The palato-jytert/goid array are largest in the middle — where they 

 are larger and stronger than all the teeth in the other jaws — and 

 diminish in size before and behind. The palatine number 11 to 13, 

 the pterygoid 12, the latter set occupying about three-fourths the 

 length of jaw that the former does. 



The mandibular number 32 to 33, and are rather smallest anteriorly 

 and posteriorly. This bone demands special remark from the fact that 

 about two-thirds of the posterior part of the dentary bone (i. e., that 

 part supporting the teeth) is not articulated with the articular bone, 

 but is loose. I believe this peculiarity, at any rate to a proximate^ 

 degree, is not to be seen in any of the Indian Snakes except the genus 

 1 'oh/odontophis. 



In Plate VIII of this series we figured some of the kraits which 

 have been confused with one another in the past, and in Plates IX 

 and X we have shown some of the harmless snakes that have been' 

 confused with the common krait B. cceruleus. 



I think the first point that will strike many of the readers of these 

 articles is that snakes, which appear so different with regard to their 

 colour and markings, should be mistaken for one another at all, yet 

 the fact remains that all of the harmless snakes we have dealt with 

 have been wrongly considered kraits by many, and too in some cases 

 not only by people little acquainted with o})hiology, but by those in the 

 care of Museum collections, who have specimens at hand with which 

 to compare a doubtful snake. In several Museums I have found speci- 

 mens of Lycodons placed with specimens of Bungarus and vice 

 versa. 



