88 BULLETIN 61, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



taken at Richmond, Wayne County, Indiana, the type remained for 

 many years the only specimen known. In 1901 Mr. Brown (1901, 27) 

 noted that there were two specimens in the Academy of Natural 

 Sciences of Philadelphia labeled ''Miami River" wliich had been 

 identified as this form by Cope, but as these with the type were 

 the only specimens known at the time he considered them rather 

 anomalous specimens of sirtaUs, on the basis of the similarity of 

 scutellation. In 1894 Doctor Stejneger (1894, 593-594) recorded a 

 specimen collected in Waterloo County, Indiana, that corresponded 

 closely to Cope's description of hutleri, and contended for the dis- 

 tinctness of the species. Later the writer (1904, 289-299) found it 

 to be common in southern Michigan, and has subsequently exam- 

 ined material from various parts of Indiana, Ohio, and western 

 Pennsylvania, which indicates that it is a common form in these 

 States, as well as a distinct species. 



At first sight it seems rather surprising that a form as common as 

 this one has proven to be should have remained so long unobserved 

 in an area that has been so well worked. The explanation that at 

 once suggests itself is the one put forward by Stejenger — that it has 

 been confused with other forms that resemble it. This has proven 

 to be the case, for we have found specimens from southern Michigan 

 in the Cope collection in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Phila- 

 delphia, labeled both ^'sauritus" and "sirtaUs,^' but perhaps the most 

 striking instance is that it has frequently been confused with the 

 questionable form ohscura. It has always been a doubtful question 

 to those who have considered the matter as to just what form or com- 

 bination of characters the name ohscura has been considered to apply 

 by those who have used it. Cope distinguished it from sirtalis by 

 the fusion of the lateral spots on the skin, a rather dubious charac- 

 ter. A possibility of error immediately arose in that hutleri is char- 

 acterized by an obscurity of these spots, and, although the type 

 specimen of ohscura was clearlj' sirtalis, as will be shown later, sub- 

 sequently to its description Cope labeled two specimens from Miclii- 

 gan in the Pliiladelphia Academy collection as '^ ohscura'^ which are 

 clearly hutleri. Butleri in coloration somewhat resembles sauritus, 

 and Cope (1888, 399) stated that ohscura "resembles at first sight 

 the E. sauritus," thus shifting the name ohscura to include hutleri 

 specimens. The basis for this statement were the two specimens 

 from Indiana, which he referred to ohscura and which were probably 

 hutleri, although the original description of hutleri immediately 

 follows. It is also very likely that the specimen recorded by Hay 

 (1892b, 526) as possibly belonging here was also a hutleri, as he quotes 

 Cope's statement that ohscura resembles sauritus. One of the speci- 

 mens listed as ohscura hj Morse (1904, 134) also proves upon exami- 

 nation to be hutleri. 



