11() PROCEEDINGS OF THE "NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol.38. 



ters in supporl of it, but he still maintains the identity of the present 

 species with E. annulatus. Doctor Wall, on the other hand, who in 

 his two curlier papers" supported Boulenger's view, in his recent 

 Monograph of the Sea Snakes/' comes to the same result as I, though 

 quite independently of my arguments in the Herpetology of Japan, 

 which had not reached him at the lime he prepared his work. 



DISTEIRA MELANOCEPHALA (Gray). 



(Herpet. Japan, L907, p. 421.) 



It is equally gratifying to see thai Doctor Wall, also quite indepen- 

 dent of my action, has suppressed the genus Hydrophis and united it 

 with Pistt ini: a procedure likewise indorsed by Mr. Van Denburgh and 

 I )octor Thompson. (! 



In his Monograph of the Sea Snakes, Doctor Wall not only unites 

 D. spiralis, brugmansii, melanocephala, subcincta, melanosoma, wrayi, 

 floweri, and alcocki, but suggests that cyanocincta and lapemoides "will 

 eventually "be united" with I), spiralis. It is quite possible that lie 

 is right or nearly right in this view, hut I think he has to some extent 

 anticipated what will "eventually" take place. In saying this I 

 allude to the fact that he states thai he considers them "all divided on 

 insufficient grounds, affecting shields known to be subject to varia- 

 t ion in this and other allied specie-." It is not reassuring to read that 

 analogy from other al/i<</ species has to he invoked in order to effect 

 this whole-ale lumping. Even the fact that some of the characters 

 relied upon for distinction are subject fa variation is not in itself 

 sufficient cause for uniting allied forms. Every herpetologist knows 

 that in numerous cases of undoubtedly distinct species the variation 

 of individual shields is so great that recourse ha- to be had to a com- 

 binal ion of characters in order to phrase a diagnosis that will apply to 

 most of the specimens. If Doctor Wall requires absolutely hard and 

 fasl lines in these snakes he may eventually be compelled to make 

 further reductions in the number of species. Adding to these con- 

 siderations the further fact that the difference between P. spiralis 

 and />. melanocephalus is sufficiently marked to draw from him the 

 admission "that melanocephalus is a local variety of spiralis charac- 

 terized l>> rat her fewer neck scales" (p. 212), 1 believe myself justified 

 in retaining Disteira melanochephala as a distinct heading, at least for 

 the present. 



Beyond the specimen recorded by me from the Pescadores nothing 

 further is known about this snake on Formosa, though it probably i- 

 common around the coasts of that island. 



"I'' I. Soc. London, 1903, pp M 102, and 1905, vol. 2, pp. 511 



b Mem. Asiatic Soc Bengal, vol. 2, no. 8, Mum, p. L87. 



■ Idem, ]>. 1!»3. 



California Acad, S< i. (4), vol. 'A. I'- . :il, l'JOS, p. 41. 



