482 REPORT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM, 1^93. 



adapted for it, with the possible exception of some of the harmless 

 snakes. We have seen that the latter, at least a great many of tliem, 

 are poison-])roof, and thus have but little to fear from the bite, and it is 

 a well known fact that some of them are able to kill and eat a poisonous 

 snake at least eciualing- them in size. Amongthe most redoubted enemies 

 of the rattlesnake is quoted the common king snake or chain snake, 

 LampropeHis gctulus, and the remnants of poisonous snakes are often 

 found in the stomachs of other species. 



This fact emphasizes the desirability of a correct discrimination 

 between the poisonous kinds and the harmless snakes. The former 

 ought to be killed and, if possible, exterminated wherever found; the 

 latter should not only be spared, but protected and their multiplication 

 encouraged, as they rank among the best friends of the farmer and the 

 gardener. 



I do not know whether it has ever been tried anywhere in this 

 country to pay a bounty or a premium per head, or rattle, for the 

 extermination of the dangerous snakes, but it is occasionally suggested, 

 and may deserve a moment's reflection in this connection, notwithstand- 

 ing the fact that there are but few localities in North America in which 

 the really dangerous snakes are numerous enough to render even an 

 ex]>eriment with bounty desirable. It would be different, of course, if 

 the system should have i^roved to possess any merit or to have been 

 followed by success in countries where it has already been tried. A 

 brief mention of some of the more noteworthy attempts in this line will 

 show, however, that such has not been the case. 



It has been tried and is still in vogue in India, where large sums are 

 paid annually for the purpose. But it does not seem to do much good, 

 except perhaps the moral effect in a country in which the dreaded 

 cobra* is considered sacred by a great portion of the poi)ulation. Even 

 in the little island of Martinique, it appears to have had but scant 

 effect in diuiinishing the number of the deadly '' ler-de-lance."t 



Prof. Kaufmann, in his book so often referred to, on the other hand, 

 indorses the system as having been instrumental in diminishing the 

 number of vipers in France, and submits that if it has not always 

 given good results where it might be expected, the reason is solely that 

 the system has not been applied in a thorough manner, in other words, 

 that it has not been adopted over the whole country. In defense of 

 this he appends a table showing the number of vipers killed in three 

 " departments " (counties) since the beginning of the system. The 

 table is verj' interesting, but as the results are very similar in all three 

 ( Haute-Saone, Doubs, Jura), I shall not weary the reader with more 

 columns of figures than those from the department of Haute Saone as 

 being most characteristic. 



* For an illustration of this (laujjjerons snake see pi. 18. 

 t See i>l. 19. 



