720 JOURNA L, BOMB A Y NA TURAL HISTOR Y SOCIETY, Vol. XVIII. 



occasionally modified, the number, disposition, and character of the 

 white arches remain distinctive. 



About the form depicted in tigure 6 of our Plate I am very 

 uncertain. The double white bands suggest that it maybe merely a 

 variety of the last form though I cannot think so. I am very familiar 

 with typical cceruleus from many parts of India, and have always 

 found it the same, with no suggestion of forms intermediate between 

 those shown in figures 5 and G of our Plate. 



I speak with doubt but my impression is that Xo. 6 is a form 

 peculiar to Bengal. J am not aware that I have seen it except in the 

 Zoological Gardens in ( lalcutta where it is usually, if my recollection 

 serves me, represented by several specimens. This recollection makes 

 me incline to the belief that it may be a local form. I trust some 

 of our members may assist in clearing up any doubts as to its 

 distribution and relationship with the last. 



Distribution. — 1 have seen examples from Ceylon*, Trichinopoly, 

 Cannanore, Bangalore, Madras, Berhampore (Ganjam), Bilaspur, and 

 Saugor (C.P.), Sitapur, Fyzabad, Gonda, Agra, Delhi, Godda (Behar), 

 Umballa, Bannu and Sind.f All of these specimens are alike in 

 possessing paired linear arches. Figure 5 of our Plate shows these 

 arches rather too stiff and conventional, but the figure otherwise 

 is o-ood. 



* Spol. Zeylan., Vol. IV, Part XVI, p. 174. 

 f The only observer who has recorded this form East of Calcutta is Cantor, 

 who referred to it from the Malay Peninsula, and sent five specimens from 

 this locality to the British Museum. I think I can show good grounds for doubting 

 the accuracy of these records. It is to be noted that the game authority stands alone 

 in recording at least six other well known Indian species from the Malay Penin- 

 sula, all otherwise not recorded outside Indian limits. These species are Typhlops 

 bjthriorJhynchut) Polyodontophis Sagittarius, Xenochrophis o era sog aster, Helicops 

 sehistosus, Zamenis fateiolatus, and Hypsirhiiw sieboldii. (Vide Cat. Snakes Brit. 

 Mus., 1893 to 1896, Vol. I, pp. 23, 188, 191, 274, 405, and Vol. Ill, p. 12). It will be 

 noticed that all of these species are to be met with in Western Bengal, where 

 indeed many are common. Now it is certain ttiat Cantor received snakes from Ben- 

 gal among other parts of India, for there are specimens in the British Museum pre- 

 sented by him and labelled from Bengal. These include Polyodontophis sagitta- 

 rius, Xenoehrophit cerasogaster, Lycodonjara, and Uypxirhina enhydrit. (Vide 

 Cat. Vol. Ill, p. 598, Vol. I, p. 191, Vol. Ill, pp. 618 and 7.) 



From these facts it is difficult to escape the conviction that all the five specimens 

 of camions sent by Cantor to the British Museum (labelled, Penang) were received 

 with the other snakes just enumerated from Bengal, and inadvertently mixed with 

 his own local collections. 



