M I S C E Iv L A N E A . 



REPTILES. 



Major Wall on some forms of Dipsadomorphus. — In the 

 last part of the Records of the Indian Museum (vol. iii^ p. 151) a 

 paper was published by Major F. Wall, I. M.S., on some forms of 

 Dipsadomorphus , in which several so called new species were des- 

 cribed. Major Wall's accuracy of observation renders the statistics 

 he provides of special value, but I feel bound to differ from him in 

 the views he expresses. 



After acknowledging that "Many of the forms now recognized 

 as species in the genus Dipsadomorphus exhibit extremely close afh - 

 nities " and stating that he has "examined no less than thirteen 

 of the twenty-three known," he goes on to say, " I have for a long 

 time thought that the species ceylouensis and hexagonotus, as 

 regarded by Mr. Boulenger in his Catalogue (1896), comprise more 

 than one form fit to rank as a species." He then proceeds to des- 

 cribe four of these forms which have been ' ' identified as ceylou- 

 ensis." Without defining in any way the old species ceylouensis , 

 he gives as a description of each of these four "species" mereh' 

 the number of rows of scales and of the ventrals and subcaudals. 

 We might take it therefore that these points provide, in his 

 opinion, all that is necessarj^ to distinguish the four species from one 

 another or from any of the remaining twent}' odd species belonging 

 to the genus, ten of which he has not seen. Would that the iden- 

 tification of snakes were so easy a matter ! But perhaps he assumes 

 Mr. Boulenger' s description of D. ceylouensis as axiomatic. 



Major Wall has examined at least six specimens of each of his 

 four "species," and in one case as many as twent5^-one; the 

 range of ventrals and subcaudals, in the whole series, is very con- 

 siderable. The rows of scales, however, only vary from 19 to 21, 

 and if they are disregarded, the numbers of the ventrals and sub- 

 caudals overlap in the different "species." Moreover, Major 

 Wall himself provides evidence that his dift'erent species cannot be 

 regarded even as local races, such as we might almost expect to 

 find in an isolated group of islands like the Andamans. I would 

 much rather regard several of the admittedly allied forms in the 

 genus as forms of one species than accept the four species into 

 which D. ceylouensis has been divided by Major Wall. 



Major Wall's views as to the question "What is a species?" 

 appear to be those now held by so many zoologists that I do not 

 think I would have been justified as editor of these "Records" 

 in refusing to publish his paper. His enthusiasm is worthy of all 

 praise. I feel, however, that some protest is necessary, not so much 



