'"''lioi!''] PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUil. 503 



Lampropeltis annulata Kexn. 



Twospecimeu.s (17031-17032) recently received from Cameron County, 

 Texas, consequently from near the type locality, bear out fully the char- 

 acters ascribed to this form as distinguished from L. gentilia. 



This species has suffered considerably at the hands of herpetologists 

 in spite of the pretty good original description by Kenuicott, and the 

 geographical distribution has accordingly been more or less in doubt. 



To begin with the catalogue of the specimens in our Museum, pub- 

 lished by Dr. Yarrow (Bull. f. S. Xat. Mus. ZS^o. 24, p. 90), two of Keu- 

 nicott's original specimens, viz: 2Jos. 1855 (by misprint 1845) and 425, 

 are enumerated under L. geritilia, while under L. annulata i)roper No. 

 1857 (=4293) is //<e type. The other specimen enumerated under the 

 latter name is no L. annulata at all, but a L. pyrrhomelas. 



Kennicott's type came from Matamoras, Mexico, just across the 

 border, while his second specimen was from the Texan town, Browns- 

 ville, just oi>posite. Cope, in preliminarily mentioning Kennicott's new 

 species enumerated a specimen from Texas. (Pr. Phil, Ac, 1800, p. 

 257.) In 1875, in his Check List, etc. (Bull. U. S. 2sat. Mus. No. 1), on 

 page 36, the habitat of L. annulata is given as "Kansas, Arkansas, 

 and Texas,'' while on page 81 it is staled to be one of the "species 

 confined to the Texan districr." Naturally looking for the species (or 

 subspecies) in his "On the Zoological Position of Texas" (Bull. U. S. 

 Nat. Mus. No. 17, 1880), one is disappointed at finding no reference to 

 it whatsoever. Again, as the type was from Mexican territory, one 

 might expect to find a reference to it in his Catalogue of Batrachians 

 and Keptiles of Central America and Mexico (Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. No. 

 32, 1887), but it is not there, not even among the synonyms. 



Under these circumstances it seems advisable to record any addi- 

 tional specimens which might throw light on the geographical distri- 

 tribution of this form, and to mention that the National Museum, in 

 addition to those already enumerated, possesses a specimen from San 

 Antonio, Bexar County, Texas (No. 7116). 



Lampropeltis rhombomaciilata (HoLB.). 



Until a very few years ago this snake was considered a southern 

 species confined to the Carolinas and Georgia. In 1888 I myself col- 

 lected one opposite Georgetown, in the District of Columbia, on the 

 Virginia side of the Potomac {U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 15329), and Dr. A. 

 K. Fisher obtained another near Alexandria, Virginia, (Cope, Pr. U. S. 

 Nat. Mus., 1888, p. 381). A third (No. 13613) is in the Museum from 

 Virginia probably not far from Washington, Geo. Shoemaker, collector, 

 and a fourth from Dunn-Loring (No, 17444) collected by ^Ir. Figgins, 

 September 9, ISOO. These were all from the Virginia side. In 1889, 

 however, one was collected by Mr. Charles W. Richmond, at Bladens- 

 burg, :\Id. (No. 17294), and in 1890 two were taken in Brookland, Dis- 



