178 SNAKES OF GENUS CHARINA STEJNEGER. 



without further questioniug. On the same occasion Cope eveu went so 

 far as to doubt the specitic distinctness of W. plumhea and T. hottce, or as 

 they were then for the first time called, Charina plumhea and Ch, 

 hottce. Later on he seems to have reversed his opinion and recognized 

 their distinctness, as in his Check-list of North American Batrachia 

 and Eeptilia (1875), page 43, he enumerates both, assigning to Ch. 

 hottce as habitat the " Lower Californian region," while Ch. plumhea 

 is stated to inhabit the " Pacific region." Whether the omission of Ch. 

 plumhea, which he himself has stated to occur in Guaymas, Sonora, 

 (Proc. Phil. Acad., 1861, p. 305), in his Catalogue of Batrachia and 

 Eeptilia of Central America and Mexico (1887), page 64, is due to his 

 considering the two species identical is not clear, since Ch. plumhea is 

 not mentioned in the synonymy of Ch. hottce. However, in describing 

 Ch. brachyops (Pr. U. S. Nat. Mus., xi, 1888, p. 88), he considers them 

 specifically identical with but little doubt. Garmau has been equally 

 uncertain as to the status of these forms. At first (Kept. Batr. N. 

 Am., I, Ophid., p. 7) he included both under the name of Charina 

 hottce, the diagnosis of which is evidently made up from descriptions 

 of both, but in the appendix (p. 131) he admits a Ch. hottm var. plum- 

 hea, the typical form with locality " California to Mexico," the variety 

 ranging through " California to Puget Sound." Still later (List N. 

 Am. Rept. and Batr., 1884, pp. 21, 22), he enumerates them as dis- 

 tinct species. As such they are also treated in Yarrow's Check List 

 of North American Eeptilia and Batrachia (1882), page 19. Only one 

 specimen of Ch. hottce seems to have been collected up to the present 

 day, viz, the type which is preserved in the Paris Museum. Besides 

 the original description and figures by Blainville, it has been described 

 both by Jan and by Bocourt and figured by the former. The latter 

 sums up the essential differences which distinguish Wenona plumhea 

 from Charina hottce, as he calls them, in the following manner : 



(1) Nasals more developed and meeting on the top of the muzzle, thus taking the 

 place of the intemasals; (2) five prefrontals instead of only four ; (3) eye separated 

 from the supralabials by two suboculars ; (4) scales of body somewhat smaller, 

 forming forty-five longitudinal rows instead of thirty-nine only. 



These characters are evidently drawn up from two specimens only, 

 the type of Ch. hottce and the specimen of Ch. plumhea which the Paris 

 Museum received from the Smithsonian Institution, without regard to 

 the variations of the latter shown in the descriptions and figures pre- 

 viously published. Having nineteen specimens in fair condition before 

 me, I am able to throw some light on the individual variation of the^e 

 snakes and to make some remarks which may not be without interest. 

 Before discussing the differences between Ch. hottw and plumhea it may 

 be well to investigate those of Ch. plumhea and isahella. As exhibited 

 by the type specimens the characters separating isahella from plumhea 

 were thought to be as follows: (1), two large prefrontals with an addi- 

 tional small scale wedged in between them posteriorly, instead of four 

 well developed ones; (2) no suborbitals, fourth and fifth labial being 



