NO. 1282. REPTILES OF HUACHVCA MOUNTAINS— STEJNEGETi. 158 



(TOSS band one to two scales behind the parietals, and by having- a ^rcat 

 number of yellow cross l)ars (varying from 37 to 57 from head to anus), 

 has thus far been found in western and southern Arizona only. In 

 California, from ''northern California," whence came the type of 

 Lockinoton's Bi-lloplil^ zonatns^ to San Diego, there occurs a different 

 form with fewer yellow bands (30 to 42 on the back, in our specimens), 

 and with the snout and labials black like the rest of the head. The 

 tirst l)lack cross bar is even a little closer to the parietals, sometimes 

 touching them. This form is clearly entitled to subspeciiic rank and 

 may l)e called Lamjpropeltlti pyrrhomeJsema myltJeincta (Yarrow).' 



In New Mexico and eastern Arizona we have again another form. 

 In this the snout is black, as in the California subspecies, but the num- 

 l>er of yellow cross bands on the back is still smaller (less than 3(^; 23 

 in our specimens) and the first black cross band is farther back, being 

 removed from the parietals by three to tive scales. This form needs 

 a name and I propose for it Laiiipi'opelt'iH pyrrJionK-lpena <'<'hv)}<p.sr 



It will be seen that I have ignored Blainville's name (nluhfr zon- 

 atux.^ which Boulenger, following Lockington's example, has recently 

 revived for the present species. Blainville's description is very 

 incomplete and differs, especially in the coloration, so much from an}^ 

 specimen I have seen that the identity of his snake with the present 

 species appears very improbable. The tj^pe has been lost, as we are 

 informed 1)}^ Bocourt, and there seems no way of exactly determining 

 to which species the name belongs. Under these circumstances T think 

 it better to drop it altogether as unidentitiable with any known snake, 

 especially since there is no proof that the type came from a locality in 

 which the species here treated of has been obtained by later collectors. 



The character by which Boulenger^ separates the present species 

 from his C. micropliolls, viz, "first black band on nape only'' of the 

 former as against " first l)lack ])and forming a complete ring extend- 

 ing across the throat" of the latter,^ does not hold at all, since we 

 have in the collection at least two ('alifornia specimens in which the 

 ring is complete, extending across the throat. 



PITUOPHIS CATENIFER DESERTICOLA Stejneger. 



Three specimens collected by Dr. Wilcox, one in the immediate 

 vicinity of the fort, another at an altitude of 5,300 feet (Nos. 17701, 

 19675, 21105). There is also a specimen from Lieutenant Benson (No. 

 11744). 



^ Ophiholus geiuhis rnidtichirla><Ya.rroy,y, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mu8., V, 1882, p. 440. 



'Ti/pe.—r.H.'NM. No. 22375; locality, Mesilla Valley, New Mexico, H. B. Lane, 

 coll. 



"Cat. Snakes Brit. Mus., II, 1894, p. 190. 



••In the synonymy of Coronella micropholis Boulenger curiously enough cites my 

 Lampropeliis annulatus (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XIV, 1891, p. 503) as against Kenni- 

 cott's L. annulata, which he places under C. genlilis, in spite of the fact that my 

 remarks are based upon and chiefly refer to Kennicott's type specimens. 



