6 I'likrrsity of Michigan 



atyi)ical /.. (/ctiiliis. A. E. Brown { Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., 

 I'hila., 1904, p. 472) said that "while no subspecific distinction 

 is warranted, most Florida examples of Ophihohis getulus 

 getiilus, which is the most vigorous and extended species [of 

 Ophibolus], seem to be rather generalized in the character of 

 the dorsal spots and bands, as between the northern species of 

 the same form and the Louisianan O. getulus sayi." Ditmars 

 (The Reptile Book, 1907, pp. 359-360) says "the jet-black 

 specimens from the northern portion of the range [referring to 

 L. getulus, with their vivid white markings] are in strange 

 contrast \sith pale, greenish specimens without bands, from 

 Florida, but a varietal name would be inappropriate as every 

 degree of connecting variations may be found in a large series 

 of specimens." However, the fact that typical L. getulus ap- 

 pears to be entirely replaced in the southern half of Florida by 

 an allied form which di tiers from it in lunuerous essential re- 

 spects makes it clear to the writer that a "varietal name" is not 

 only appropriate, but necessary. 



Lampropeltis getulus yumensis, new subspecies 



Plate I, Figure 2 

 Diagnosis: In "scalation, proportions, and pattern, essent- 

 ially like L. getulus boylii, from which it differs in that the scales 

 of the light areas are shaded basally with brown, thus giving 

 a spotted a])pearance to the light annuli. From this form and 

 from L. getulus conjuncta (Cope) of the Cape Region of 

 Lower California (with which it has been confused) it may 

 be distinguished by the fact that the white bars on the pre- 

 frontal plates are oblong and occupy not more than one-half 

 the area of these scutes, instead of being convex behind and 

 occupying nearly all their area. Furthermore, in L. getulus 

 conjuncta the infralabials are usually 10. and in L. getulus 

 yumensis they are usually 9. 



