700 REPORT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM, 1902. 



1887. Malsophis Cope, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., X, 1887, p. 439 (emend.). 

 1894. Dromicus Boulenoer, Cat. Sn. Brit. Mus., II, p. 118 (type D. aiKjulifer), 

 (not of Bibron, 1842). 



The species of this genus reseinl)le those of Leimadoj>his closely, 

 but may easily be distinguished by the pair of conspicuous pores or 

 pits near the tip of the dorsal scales. 



The type of Bibron's genus Droinicas is plainh" stated to be (Joluher 

 curmr of Lacepede, and J>. (inguUfer, therefore, can not be so 

 regarded. 



Two species of this West Indian genus occur within our territory, 

 their distribution being exactly parallel to that of the two .species 

 of Leimadophis^ inasmuch as one inhal)its Porto Rico proper (and 

 Mona Island), while the other is confined to the Virgin Islands, Culebra 

 and Vieques. The chief diHerence in this case is not in the number 

 of the ventrals, which is almost the same in the two species, l)ut in the 

 number of scale rows round the body. 



The}" may be distinguished as follows: 



«' Scale rows, 17; iifth scale row without any distinctive color feature. 



A. portoricensis, p. 700. 

 a^ Scale rows, 19; every second or third scale of the fifth scale row particolored, 

 the ui)per half being whitisli, the lower half blackish {Qff. 174). 



A. anti/lerms, p. 704. 



ALSOPHIS PORTORICENSIS " Reinhardt and Luetken. 



1868. Alsojjhis portoricensis Reinhardt and Luetken, Vid. Meddel. Naturh. 

 Foren. (Copenhagen), 1862, p. 221; authors' separate p. 69 (type 

 locality, Porto Rico). — Peters, Mon. Ber. Berlin Akad. Wiss., 1876, 

 p. 708 (Porto Rico). — Gundlach, Anal. Soc. Espafi. Hist. Nat, X, 

 1881, p. 313 (Porto 'Rico).—Alophis p. Stahl, Fauna Puerto-Rico, 1882, 

 pp. 70, 160. 



1887. Alsophis mdanichnus Garman, Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc, XXIV, 1887, p. 

 283 (Bayamon, Porto Rico) (not of Cope?)., 



1896. Dromicus samix-crucis var. portoricensis Boulenger, Jahresber. Naturw. 

 Ver. Magdeburg, 1894-1896, p. 113 (Mona).— Meerwarth, Mitth. 

 Naturh. Mus. Hamburg, XVIII, 1901, p. 11 (Mona). 



1896. Drom'ums sanrtie-crucis Boulenger, Cat. Sn. Brit. Mus., Ill, p. 634 (Mona 

 I.) (not of Guenther). 



From the above synonymy it might be inferred that the present 

 species is most intimatel}^ related to AUophis smicticrucis of Cope, as 

 it has been made a su])species of the latter by authors who regard 

 A. antillensis as specifically distinct. Such is not the case, however. 

 This treatment of the three forms is only due to the fact that both A. 

 poTtor'tct'nxh and A. sanetlcrucis have 17 scale rows while A. antillen- 

 sis has 19. But apart from the difl'erence in the number of ventrals 

 between the former, a character at least as important as that of the 

 scale rows, the ^1. lyoi'torieencis and A. antillensis are realh' more nearly 

 related than either of them is to A. sancticrucis. 



« From Porto Rico. 



