3+. LAMPROPELTIS 



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 boyl'ii can conjuncta be 

 derived from yumensis. L. g. conjuncta "shows closer affin- 

 ities with boylii 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 boylii; 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 boylii, 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- 



