SNAKES OF THE GENUS PITUOPHIS 73 



Specimens have been examined from the following localities: 



Florida: Alachua County, Gainesville; Brevard County, Eau Gallie; Escambia 

 County, Pensacola; Lake County, Eustis; Marion County, Lake Kerr, Eureka; 

 St. Lucie County, Sebastian, Fort Pierce; Volusia County, Orange City, 

 Volusia; Palm Beach County, 10 miles north of West Palm Beach. 



Additional published records for the form are as follows: 



Florida: Duval County, Jacksonville (Deckert, 1918, p. 32); Orange County (Lonn- 



berg, 1894, p. 328), Orlando (Brimley, 1910, p. 14). 

 Georgia: Baker County, Mimsville (Brimley, 1910, p. 14). 



Habits arid habitat. — Almost nothing is recorded concerning the habits 

 of mugitus. They are, however, probably very similar to those of 

 the closely aUied form, m. melanoleucus, with which mugitus was 

 generally identified until Barbour separated the two forms in 1921. 

 The observations of Cope (1892, p. 640) and of Ditmars (1907, p. 317) 

 on the habits of melanoleucus (quoted above) undoubtedly refer as 

 much to the Florida form as to the more northern subspecies. 



Lonnberg (1894, p. 328) says of the Florida form: "From its loud 

 hissmg it is called 'bull snake' and 'pine snake' from its living in the 

 pine woods. All the specimens observed by me are from dry, sandy 

 pine woods in Orange County." 



Deckert (1918, p. 32) reports finding "one specimen in a pine forest 

 near a bayou" near Jacksonville. 



Affinities. — The closest affinities undoubtedly exist between tliis 

 form and the other subspecies of melanoleucus. The direct derivation 

 of mugitus from ruthveni is indicated by the coloration and scale char- 

 acters of the two forms. The pattern of the former may be derived 

 readily from that of ruthveni by a diminution in the color of the spots, 

 a fusion of the smaller anterior spots in pairs, and a blending of the 

 spots with the ground color on the anterior part of the dorsum. The 

 acceptance of lodingi as a phylogenetic intermediate between ruthveni 

 and mugitus is precluded by a consideration of the coloration and other 

 characters of the two forms. The color is greatly darkened tlirough- 

 out in lodingi to produce a dorsum uniformly black and a slate-gray 

 belly, while the tendency in mugitus, on the contrary, is decidedly 

 toward a loss of pigment. In addition, both the dorsal scale formula 

 and the proportionate tail length of mugitus are intermediate between 

 those of lodingi and ruthveni, rather than those of lodingi being inter- 

 mediate. In spite of the fact that in the dorsal scale formula and the 

 number of spots mugitus is intermediate between ruthveni and melano- 

 leucus, it cannot be accepted as a phylogenetic intermediate between 

 those two forms, since in the variations in ventrals and caudals, and 

 particularly in the coloration, the trends apparent from ruthveni to 

 the other two forms are in each case directly opposed. Furthermore, 

 in the increase of the ratio of tail length to total length mugitus has 



