NOTES ON ATJSTRALIAN TYPHLOPID^ — WAITE. 61 



namely, T. nigrescens, Gray, T. regince, Boulenger, — each of which 

 has twenty-two transverse scales and a rounded snout — and 

 T. ligatus, Peters, readily recognisable by the narrow rostral 

 and the twenty-four rows of scales. In T. proximus, as already 

 mentioned, the snout is decidedly acute, and the scales are arranged 

 in twenty series. In Plate xv., figs. 3 and 4 are drawn from the 

 type specimen, and figs. 1 and 2 from an average example of 

 2'. nigrescens introduced for the purposes of comparison ; in the 

 latter, four body scales are in contact with each parietal, while 

 in T. proximus there are only three, owing to the smaller number 

 in the transverse series. The figures being drawn to the same 

 scale (four times natural size) it will be seen that the head of 

 this species is relatively larger than that of T. fiigrescens, for the 

 specimens are of practically equal length, being 405 millim. and 

 395 millim, respectively. 



It will be noticed that Jan's figures* are fairly accurate, and 

 McCoy, although describing T. nigrescens, has figuredf at any 

 rate the head of the species I here determine. 



Since the foregoing was in type, I have written to Professor 

 Sir Frederick McCoy, and mentioned how closely his figure 

 resembles T. proximus ; and although in the text he states that 

 the body scales are in twenty-two rows, I ventured to ask him to 

 re-count the rows in the specimen figured, and I quote the follow- 

 ing from his reply : — " First I must thank you for drawing my 

 attention to a misprint, — in my description of Typhlops nigrescens 

 in my Prodromus of the Zoology of Victoria, Dec. xi., — of 

 twenty-two scales instead of twenty, which I find in my MSS. 

 and in all the specimens..." He further mentions that in his 

 figures (Plate 103, figs. \a. and \c.) the rostral is not drawn quite 

 sufiiciently prominent; this would increase the similarity between 

 his figures and mine, and as he assures me that all the figures on 

 the Plate were drawn from the same specimen (although, owing 

 to the apparent discrepancy in the number of body scales, I had 

 suggested to him that they were not), it appears evident that 

 Plate 103 illustrates T. proximus and not T. nigrescens. The 

 anal spot is, however, more conspicuous than in any of my 

 specimens, but is subject to much variation, being absent in 

 some examples. 



As Prof. McCoy mentions that all his specimens possess the 

 character of having only twenty rows of scales on the body, it would 

 appear that there are no examples of T. nigrescens in the National 

 Museum, Melbourne, and we may therefore provisionally infer 

 that this species does not occur in Victoria, and while it is very 



* Icon. Gren. des OphidienSj 9 Liv., pi. i., fig. la., et seq. 

 t Prod. Zool. Victoria, ii., pi. 103. 



