96 BULLETIN 61, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



and* Ohio specimens fall within these extremes, as do also both of the 

 Pennsylvania. Subcaudals (Ann Arbor, Michigan) , males 61-66, 

 females 49-58. The male records are based on but few specimens, 

 how^ever, and the number probably ranges both lower and higher. 

 Indeed, a male from Columbus shows 59. The type of hracliystoTna, 

 although doubtful, is probably a male and lias 72. In the McKean 

 County specimen the tail is injured. The series are too small to 

 reveal geographic differences, if they exist. 



One must be cautious in drawing conclusions from such a small 

 amount of data, but the fact that in very few specimens west of 

 Pennsylvania does the reduction in the dorsal scale formula become 

 so low as in the Pennsylvania specimens nor the labial formula as 

 small as in the McKean County specimen seems to us to indicate a 

 reduction in scutcllation to the eastward, at least as far as these 

 characters are concerned. At any rate, it is evident, as is shown by 

 the diagrams, that hutleri as a form is characterized by a very reduced 

 scutellation. 



AJfiriities. — The only form with which hutleri has been confused is 

 sirtalis. Its distinctness from this form has been pointed out (Ruth- 

 ven, 1904, 295 and 298), and this distinctness is such that there is 

 slight reason for deriving it from this form, from which it differs in 

 the position of the lateral stripe, the number of labial plates, and 

 color, while lying entirely within its range. It also differs from 

 sauritus in the number of labial plates and in the tail length, and also 

 lies entirely within its range. 



Here again the difliculty in establishing relationships lies in the 

 fact that the position of the lateral stripe is noncommittal. It is 

 true that posteriorly it is upon the second and third rows, but this 

 is frequently the casein forms with the stripe on 3 and 4, when the 

 fourth row is lost to leave 17 (megalops and marcianus). Anteriorly 

 the lateral stripe is on 3 and one-half of 2 and 4, and it seems that 

 this is probably due to a tendency to the loss of the fourth row, 

 for where it is present the stripe is always partly upon it, while 

 w^hen it is absent the stripe is on 2 antl 3. The only other form 

 whose range it approaches is radix, and if the position of the lateral 

 stripe be considered as a modification of the position which it occu- 

 pies in this form (on the third and fourth rows), everything seems 

 to point toward radix as the nearest relative; for, although radix 

 has generally a larger scutellation, we have already seen that in 

 the extreme eastern part of its range, which corresponds very closely 

 with the w^estern limit of hutleri, a reduction occurs that brings 

 the number of scale rows and labials, at least, exactly to the formulas 

 that characterize hutleri. I believe that I am justified in con- 

 cluding, therefore, that this form is a member of the Radix group, 

 and that its closest relative is radix, which it meets on the west. 



