NOTES. 175 
This is a matter of considerable interest, for hitherto this species, 
as an inhabitant of Ceylon, rested on the single example obtained 
by Mr. Rudd at Jafina. This is referred to by Haly (Catalogue, 
1891, No. 102), and later by Willey (Spolia Zeylanica, vol. III., 
1906, p. 233). 
With this single specimen on record it was open to speculation 
whether the species does really inhabit Ceylon, as. more than 
one instance is known of snakes being transported by ships in 
cargo or timber to ports remote from the regions they naturally 
inhabit. 
Again, it does not follow that a snake inhabiting the northern 
part of the Island will be found in other parts of the Island, 
for the fauna of the northern part agrees with that of the 
Southern Madras Province to the east of the Western Ghats, 
whilst that of the rest of the Island conforms to that of the 
Malabar region (Blanford. Journal of the Asiatic Society of 
Bengal, vol. XX XIX., pp. 336 to 339). 
This second specimen sets at rest any doubts there may have 
been on the subject, and’ substantiates Ferguson’s opinion (Reptile 
Faun. of Ceylon, 1877, No. 102) that the Indian Krait is found 
in Ceylon, the evidence for which statement having been seem- 
ingly lost. 
In all I examined five specimens of the Indian Krait, three of 
which have no record of locality, and it may well be that two of 
these are the specimens referred to by Ferguson (loc. cit.) as having 
been presented by himself. 
Polgahawela, situated where it is, leaves little doubt that the 
snake is to be found throughout Ceylon. 
I compared the five Indian specimens with many examples 
of the Ceylon Krait, B. ceylonicus, side by side, and it appears 
to me that they are to be distinguished as follows: The Ceylon 
Krait appears to me a distinctly smaller reptile. In colour it 
is very distinctive. The broad black bands pass beneath the 
belly, except in very young examples, but even in these I found ~ 
them more or less apparent beneath the tail when absent on the 
body. The white bands are most distinct anteriorly, gradu- 
ally becoming less so posteriorly. They are broader than in 
candidus and single and equi-distant. The second suprala- — 
bial is decidedly narrower than the third, and the. suture made 
by the preocular with the second supralabial is much smaller, 
often only half that formed by the prxocular and the third 
supralabial. ) 
Candidus is decidedly larger. The black bands do not pass 
beneath the belly, which is always pure white even beneath the 
tail to its tip. The white bars are most distinct behind, and 
become obscure and lost anteriorly. They are in pairs behind, 
