8 ARKIV FÖR ZOOLOGI. BAND 7. N:0 8. 



The most important differences are in addition to these al- 

 ready mentioned the following. The rostral extends further 

 backwards on the iipper surface than -in P. meleagris, and 

 the whole rostrum projects more beyond the mandible. The 

 internasals are shorter biit broader than in P. meleagris. In 

 the latter the supraocular is more broadly in contact with 

 the pref rontal, and in consequence of this the f rontal is 

 broader in front in P. m. concolor. The parietals are quite 

 wrongly represented in Reinhardt's figure 4 (1. c). They 

 are in reality very much broader. The type of P,. meleagris 

 has 35 subcaudals, and its colour is different from that of the 

 present specimen. 



When writing about African snakes I take the opportunity 

 of making a statement concerning a snake which I described 

 and figured some years ago under the name of Dendraspis 

 sjöstedti from Kilimandjaro.^ Reviewing this paper in Archiv 

 fiir Naturgeschichte- Werner has expressed his doubts about 

 this snake with the following words: »ob nicht ein Chlorophisl 

 aus der Abbildung nicht zu erkennen! » Now, of course, every- 

 body can make a mistake, but to charge without any other 

 foundation than mere guessing an author with such a gross 

 mistake as of describing a Chlorophis under the name of Den- 

 draspis is a little too much. As if I should not ha ve been able 

 to see the big fångs as well in the upper as in the lower jaw of 

 a Dendraspisl Having guessed that the figure represented 

 the head of a Chlorophis Werner thinks that it is not recog- 

 nizable, but if the true fact that it represents a Dendraspis, 

 as it re all 3' does is kept in mind, I think the figure is cha- 

 racteristic enough. 



^ Wiss. Ergebn. d. Schwed. Zool. Exp. Kilimanjuro ]Meru. 4 Reptilia 

 nnd Batrachia p. 17. 



- Jahrg. 74. Bd. II. Hft. 1, III p. 35. 



I 



Trvckt den 1.5 december 1910. 



Uppsala 1910. Almqvist & Wiksells Boktryckeri-A.-B. 



