THE POISONOUS SNAKES OF INDIA. 21 



Identification. — The linear white arches, taken with 15 scale rows 

 and the undivided subcaudals (see fig. B) suffice to declare its 

 identity. One important feature for those to note who in spite of all 

 precautions persist in trying to identify their specimens by colour and 

 markings instead of by conformation and relationship of shields, is the 

 fact that in all the snakes which resemble this species in colour, viz., 

 Lycodon aidicus (certain varieties) and L. striatus, together with 

 Dryocalamus nympha, D. gracilis and D, davisoni, the white cross bars 

 are most evident in the anterior part of the body, and gradually fade 

 posteriorly till they are often lost. It is characteristic of this krait, how- 

 ever, that the white bars are most distinct posteriorly, and often fade 

 away anteriorly — in fact, the anterior one-third or one-half of the body 

 is frequently without marks in adults. 



Supplementary characters. — In the vertebral row the scales are 

 about as broad as long in the middle of the body (see fig. 7). The 

 2nd supralabial is peculiar in being as broad as the 3rd. 



Distribution. — Throughout the Indus Valley, the Gauges Valley, 

 Peninsula India, and Ceylon. It has been found up to 4,000 ft., 

 but is essentially a snake of the plains. It is very rare in Ceylon.* 

 It is the only Krait found in Peninsula India South of the Ganges 

 Basin. 



Poison. — This is known to prove fatal to man, but the literature on 

 this very common species makes remarkably few references to cases 

 of its bite. The reason must be assigned, in great measure, to the 



* There are 5 specimens of this snake in the British Museum, presented by 

 Cantor from the Malay Peninsula. I think there are good grounds to discredit the 

 accuracy of this record. It is noteworthy that sis other Indian Snakes are recorded 

 from the Malay Peninsula on the sole authority of Cantor, viz., Ti/jihlops bothriorhyn- 

 cJms, Polyoiiontophis satjittarlus, Xenochrophis cerasogasler, Zamenia fasciolutns, Helicops 

 schistosus and Hypslrhina sleholdi. All of these snakes are known from Bengal but 

 not as far East as Burma. Now it is certain that Cantor received snake8 from Bengal 

 because specimens of the following species are given in his name from Bengal 

 to the British Museum, viz., Polyodontopltig sacjittarius, Xenochrophh cerasogaster, 

 Lycodon Jara, and ffypsirhina enhydrls. Under these circumstances one cannot escape the 

 conviction that the snakes above enumerated together with 5 Bungnni.^ vceridtus were 

 received by him from Bengal and inadvertently mixed with his Malayan collection. 

 Further Boulenger has cast doubts on the locality of a specimen of Dryophh mycter\zinf< 

 presented to the British Museum bj the same collector labelled from Assam. In support 

 of these statements vile Boulenger's Catalogue of Snakes in the British Museum, 189:^ 

 to 1896. 



