34. LAMPROPELTIS 759 
Remarks.—This snake is so similar in appearance to L. 
g. conjuncta of the Cape Region of Lower California that 
I regarded them as identical. According to Blanchard, 
however, this resemblance is only apparent, and these two 
subspecies need never be confused, that indeed they are not 
even related directly,—only through Joylii can conjuncta be 
derived from yumensis. L. g. conjuncta “shows closer affin- 
ities with doylii than with this form in the pattern and scala- 
tion of the head, and in the fact that its young are indis- 
tinguishable in the coloration of the white rings from the 
young and adults of Joylit; and that the basal shading of 
the white scales, which has resulted in the confusion of the 
southern Arizona specimens with those from the Cape 
Region, may well have been derived by conjuncta directly 
from doylii, since the latter shows this character sporadically 
throughout its range.” L. getulus yumensis “intergrades 
with L. getulus splendida (Baird & Girard) in the vicinity 
of Tucson, Arizona, and east and south of there. In the 
region of the Florence River, in Arizona, it passes into 
L. getulus boylii (Baird & Girard), and in Imperial County 
or eastern San Diego County, California, it likewise inter- 
grades with this form.” 
Distribution—The Desert Milk Snake has been recorded 
from Arizona, California, Lower California, and Sonora. 
In Arizona, it is confined to the southern portions of the 
state, where it has been secured in Graham (Ash Creek, Cal- 
va, San Carlos Indian Reservation, Fort Grant), Pima (Tuc- 
son, Fort Lowell, 27 miles west from Indian Oasis), and 
Yuma (Yuma, Colorado River 10 miles below Cibola), 
counties. 
In California, it has been secured only along the Colo- 
rado River at Pilot Knob, Fort Yuma, and five miles north- 
