POISONOUS SNAKES OF NORTH AMERICA. 415 



its food is almost wholly made up of mice and otber rodents, and he 

 consequently considers it decidedly useful, aside from its venomous 

 qualities. It seems hardly advisable, however, to suggest j)rotectiou 

 for this species on this account, but I would advise that the farmers 

 spare the life of every large harmless snake on their land, and there 

 would be no harm in killing off ev^ery Eattler, for harmless snakes will 

 destroy the mice fully as well as the poisonous ones. 



Thk Gulf-coast Massasauga. 

 Sistniriis catenatus consors,* (R. & G.). 



7853. — Crotalophonis coiisors, Baird aud Girard, Cat. N. Am. Serp., p. 12. — Dv- 

 MERiL aud BiBRoN, Eippt. Geuer., vii, ii, p. 1482 (1854). — Baird, Pac. K. 

 R. Rep., X, Reptiles, p. 14 (1859). 



1883. — Sistrurus catexalus, var. consors, Gakmax, Rept. Batr. N. Am., i, Ophid., 

 p. 176. 



1892.^.* Sistruru.s catenatus, Garman, Bull. Essex Inst., xxiv, p. 4. 



ii'/^«m— Baird. Pac. R. R. Rep., x, Rept. pi. xxiv, fig. 8 (18,59). 



The status of the present form is very doubtful. It was described by 

 Baird and Girard from a single specimen collected at Indiauola, Tex., 

 which now appears to be lost. The original descrij^tion does not fur- 

 nish any very tangible character by which to separate it from typical 

 S. catenatus with 25 scale rows, but its scutellation is compared chiefly 

 with 8. miUarius, which seems to indicate that it may have had the pre- 

 ocalar and posterior nasal separated, although the otherwise so char- 

 acteristic color pattern of the head is that of S. eatenatns. The figure 

 111 the Pacific Railroad Eeport [pi. xxiv, fig, 8], gives only the top of the 

 head, but the above suggestion is strengthened by that figure, which 

 certainly seems to show a separation of the shields mentioned by a loreal, 

 but whether by an upper loreal, detached from the anterior i)ortion of the 

 preocular, or by a large loreal jjroper, is not clear, although the former 

 alternative seems most j)robable. In that case we have probably to do 

 with an individual variation only, and the only ground for the separa- 

 tion of the subspecies would lie the smallness of the dorsal spots. The 

 25 scale rows would then distinguish it from the subspecies S. c. edivardsii. 



Iain inclined to think that the 8. catenatus reported by Garman (Bull, 

 Essex. Inst., xxiv, 181>2, p. 4.) from Deming's Bridge, Matagorda County, 

 Tex., not very far from the type locality of 8. eorisors, and which, like 

 the latter, had 25 scale rows, belong here. They have, moreover, 48 to 

 51 dorsal blotches. 



For the sake of completeness, I add the original description by C, 

 Girard. 



Description. — Twenty-five rows of dorsal scales, all cariiiated except 

 the two first rows on either .side. Seven series of blotches, one dorsal 

 and 3 on each side, all very small. A yellowish white line passing from 

 behind the nostril below and behind the eye. 



*From the Latin coiifiors, a iiartiier, companion, or relative. 



