2G8 JOURNAL, BOMBA Y NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY , Vol. XIX. 



other tree haunting species. In vindication of Major Begbie's interesting note 

 I think if the snake skin can be produced it would be well to submit it to our 

 Society, to set at rest any doubts on the subject. 



Abnormal specimens of Zamenls mucosus and Dipsadomorphus frigonatus. — A 

 single loreal in the former species is certainly a rare deviation from the 

 normal type, I am not aware that I have ever seen this. 



The shield referred to with a query by Mr. J. P. Mullan in his figure of 

 the Gamma snake is the upper part of a divided 2nd supralabial. The supra- 

 labials are not infrequently subject to a similar division in many snakes, and 

 the tendency to division in certain species has become fixed or nearly fixed. 

 Thus in some Simotes and Coluber the foremost supraocular touching the eye 

 is normally divided, and constitutes what Mr. Boulenger designates (I think 

 erroneously) a subocular. There is just as little justification judging from 

 analogy for calling this a subocular, as there is for regarding the shield in 

 Mr. Mullan's figure a loreal. 



Kraits in Indore. — Mr. Cholmondeley rightly assumes the Krait he first 

 speaks of in Miscellaneous Note XXVI as valU. I have examined one specimen 

 which he sent to our Society's collection, and have no doubts as to its identity. 

 This specimen and Mr. Cholmondeley's notes however call for a modification 

 of some of my original remarks when describing the species. Thus the 

 prffiocular white spot I foimd absent in my specimens is present at least some 

 times. I noticed a slight tendency for some of the most posterior white arches 

 to be paired in the specimen sent me by the Society. The " dirtier " colour 

 beneath the tail tip is obviously a modification of the mottling I referred to in 

 this region and I must admit that perhaps " mottlings " was a misleading word 

 to use. The white is decidedly sullied with a suffused tint of slatish. In 

 my original specimens I noted the tendency of the tail to subtriangularity in 

 section though I omitted to record it. I hardly think however it was as pro- 

 nounced as Mr. Cholmondeley shows it. The species is no doubt vei-y close 

 to cdiruleus differing mainly in the scale rows numbering 17. I think too 

 the narrowness of the 2nd supralabial as compared with the 3rd important, 

 though subject to some variation in its degree. The specimen from Indoi-e 

 I examined was a deep black not mercurial-black as in my first specimens. 



I take specimens A, B, D, E and F referred to by Mr. Cholmondeley to be 

 walU without doubt, and specimen C a cicrideua. 



From Mr. Cholmondeley's notes the range of subcaudals for this species is 

 extended somewhat and from 17 records of specimens now known to me is 

 44 to 55. Indore as a habitat for the species extends its previously known 

 range of distribution, but though Indore is perhaps not strictly speaking in the 

 Ganges Basin it is to be noted that adjacent rivers flow into the Ganges. 



Its extension to Indore again slightly modifies the remark in my book that 

 caruleus is the only krait found south of the Ganges. 



Mr. Cholmondeley is to be congratulated on being the first to give us any 

 information of the virulence of the poison of this krait, and his note is an 



