214 MAJOR F. WALL, LM.S., C.M.Z.S8. 
in one of the specimens labelled wrayi, and it is noteworthy that the specimens 
labelled wray: and floweri are all from the same locality, viz., Perak. ‘The failure of the 
prefrontal to meet the second supralabial is only partial, for this contact occurs on one 
Fig. 24.—-Distiva (Hydrophis) lowert, x ti. Atter Boulenger in Proc. Zool. Soc., 1898. 
side in one of the specimens. I have observed the same abnormality in eight of the 
large series I consider sfivalis. I am strongly of opinion these specimens should be 
regarded as an abnormal form of spiralis (Shaw). 
Fig. 25.—Distira alcockt. 
alcocki (Wall). — Last year I described' what I considered at the time a very well 
marked new species under the above title. I could not satisfactorily view the teeth, 
as the specimen was a very small one, and placed it with the Hydrophis on account of 
the slender proportions of the neck. 
In most respects very like brugmansii the fact that the preefrontal shield did not 
meet the second supralabial, taken with the low number of scaies in the neck (25), and 
body (30), and the small number of ventrals (282) made it difficult to know where to 
place it. I find now, however, that of 65 specimens in my notes which I identify as 
spiralis the preefrontal fails to meet the second supralabial in seven other instances,” 
including the type-specimen of sfzralis in the British Museum. I find also that other 
examples afford parallel or nearly parallel departures from the normal with reference 
to the three other details made mention of, and so I have no hesitation whatever in 
considering this snake now as a somewhat aberrant example of sipralis. 
The characters upon which reliance is placed to separate spiralis from cyanocincta 
are all subject to some variation in both species, and specimens occur combining these 
characters sometimes so intimately that itis difficult to decide with which form to place 
them ; indeed, it seems to me very dubious whether they can be considered apart. Of 
12 specimens labelled brugmansii in the British Museum, a form I hold to be syn- 
onymous with sfzvalis, three I consider are misplaced, and should be included with 
| Memoirs As. Soc. Bengal, 1906, p. 288. 
2 I have signally failed to bring these six specimens together by any combination of characters 
