LÖNNBERG, TWO NEW SNAKES FROM LOWER CONGO. 7 



The presence of two postoculars instead of only one is not by 

 itself so very important, because in the latter case an upper 

 postocular might have become fused witli the supraocular, 

 which appears the most probable interpretation in this instance, 

 or both postoculars might have joined inter se. A comparison 

 of the specimen now considered, and Reinhardt's figure of 

 the type of P. meleagris indicates that the shape of the parietals 

 is very different in the tAvo. In the former the parietals are 

 rather large and broad so that their width is considerably 

 more than half their length, but in the latter the width of the 

 parietals is contained fully twice in their length. Reinhardt 

 sa3^s also about this »Nakkeskjoldene ere kun lidt udviklede» 

 (1. c. p. 239) which in this connection must be translated: 

 »the parietals are only little developed». Of less importance 

 is perhaps that the posterior upper margin of the rostral is 

 angular on Reinhardt 's figure but the Congo specimen has a 

 quite straight transversal suture between the 

 rostral and the internasal. The dimensions of 

 the prsefrontal is also different, in P. meleagris 

 its length being more than half the length oi -r.. o d ^^"^" 

 the f rontal, while it is less than half the f rontal 

 in Laman 's Prosymna. The supraocular of the former is 

 larger especially wider, its width behind being much more than 

 half its length, and anteriorly it has a rather broad suture to 

 the praef rontal, while the same shield in the new species is 

 narrow with its greatest width about equal to half its length 

 and anteriorl}^ its suture to the prsef rontal is short. 



The shape of the upper labials is also different. According 

 to Reinhardt's figures quoted they, as well as the loreal, look 

 larger when compared with other shields in P. meleagris than 

 in the species from Lower Congo. The snout appears to be 

 more strongly projecting in the latter. 



Since this comparison between the present specimen and 

 Reinhardt 's description and figure of Prosymna meleagris 

 had been made, and the result written down I had, thanks 

 to the kindness of my friend Dr. Ad. Jensen, the opportu- 

 nity of making a renewed and this time direct comparison 

 with Reinhardt's type kept in the Zoological Museum in 

 Copenhagen. By this it was fully proved that Reinhardt's 

 figure is inaccurate, and the difference betAveen the present 

 specimen and P. meleagris appears to be of subspecific value. 



