48 BULLETIN 18 7, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



(known from a few localities in the states of Guanajuato, Hidalgo, 

 Jalisco, Michoacan, Nayarit, Veracruz, and Distrito Federal). 



♦DIADOPHIS REGALIS REGALIS Baird and Girard 



DiadopMs regalis Baikd and Gibakd, Catalogue of North American reptiles, 1853, 

 p. 115. 



DiadopMs regalis regalis Cope, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 14, 1892, p. 615. — Blan- 

 CHABD, Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, No. 142, 1923, pp. 1-2. — Wood- 

 bury, Bull. Univ. Utah, vol. 21, No. 5, 1931, pp. 68^69, figs. 24, 25.— 

 Blanchakd, Bull. Chicago Acad. Sci., vol. 7, No. 1, 1942, pp. 60-65, fig. 15, 

 map 3. 



Diadophis regalis Uanchardi Schmidt and Smith, Publ. Field Mus. Nat. Hist., 

 , zool. ser., vol. 29, 1944, pp. 89^90 (type locality, Basin, Chisos Mountains, 

 Tex. ; type, U. S. Nat. Park Serv. No. 161).'' 



Type.—U. S. N. M. No. 2062. 



7'ype locality. — "Sonora." 



Range. — Central Texas, including the Great Bend region, west to 

 southeastern Arizona and perhaps extreme northern Sonora and 

 Chihuahua, northward into southwestern Utah and Colorado. 



DIADOPHIS REGALIS LAETUS Jan 



Diadophis punctatus laetus Jan, Arch. Zool. Anat. Fis., vol. 2, 1863, pp. 262-265. 



Diadophis regalis laetus Blanchard, Bull. Chicago Acad. Sci., vol. 7, No. 1, 1942, 

 pp. 55-60, fig. 14, map 3. 



Diadophis regalis arizonae Blanchaed, Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, 

 No. 142, 1923, pp. 2-3 (type locality, Sabino Canyon, Santa Catalina Moun- 

 tains, Ariz. ; type, U.S.N.M. No. 62568). 



Type. — Heidelberg Mus. 



Type locality. — Unknown, but probably Tucson, Ariz. 



Range. — Eastern Sonora and western Chihuahua to central Ari- 

 achi, and Mojarachic, Chihuahua; Santa Magdalena, So7iora; and 

 are represented by specimens now available : Colonia Dublan, Basuri- 

 achi, and Mojarachic, Chihu<ihua; Santa Magdalena, Sonora; and 

 "San Luis Potosi"). 



25 Schmidt and Smith in this paper suggest that the name regalis must apply to the south- 

 western population of the species, because its type locality is situated more or less in that 

 area (see Blanchard's map) ; and that therefore laetus and arizonae are synonyms of 

 regalis, while the eastern population is to be called r. Manclmrdl. The importance of the 

 neck ring as a subspecific character is minimized, and emphasis placed upon size and 

 number of ventrals. 



This suggestion, while perhaps valid, does not aid in allocation of specimens to the 

 several supposed forms, for the ventral counts overlap broadly and size differences are 

 not usually apparent ; these are the only distinctions suggested by Schmidt and Smith. We 

 suggest as an equally plausible possibility that the forms are not subspecies at all but 

 rather are distinct species, and that the character of the collar is the chief criterion dis- 

 tinguishing the species. Still other alternative possibilities are suggested by Schmidt and 

 Smith. In view of the paucity of data on these snakes, we feel justified in retaining 

 Blanchard's arrangement as at least the most workable, if not the most nearly correct 

 one, proposed to date. 



