VOL. XV 



189: 



"''•] PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. 731 



specie's differs soiuewbat in tlie (Iciilitioii, it liiiviiig' nine supraniaxillary 

 teeth instead of li\'e. Tliey are soinewiiat .smaller and more closely set, 

 bnt tliis would scarcely justify their generic separation, inasnuich as 

 all the other characteristics of the genus are present, particularly the 

 single, swollen nasal with the incomi^lete, oblique subnaral suture. 

 The coloration is also of a very similar character. 



At first I had determined upon a new name for the i^resent species, 

 not supposing" that an opistoglyph snake liad been described l)y Peters 

 as an Ablahes ; but a comparison with his tigureand description leaves 

 but little doubt but that it is the same species, and that Peters over- 

 looked the groove of the last maxillary tooth. 



Since writing the above I find that Boulenger has recently united 

 H. notot(vnia and H. luldehrandtii under the name oi Amphiophis noto- 

 tauiia {Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 181)1, p. 307). For the reasons given 

 above I still retain the two names distinct. As to the propriety of 

 wuitm'^ Hem irhafferrJi is Boettger \\it\i A mphioph is Smith, I can have 

 no opinion, since I am unacquainted with the tyi>e species of the latter. 



Psammophis sibilans (Lix.). 



Jau, Icon. Ophid., livr. ?A, pi. iii, tig. 3. 



Two adult specimens, one (Xo. 20129) from Wange, by Deuhardt, the 

 other from the Tana, by Chanler (No. 20099). 



Psammophis biseriatus Pkteijs. 

 Sitzuugsbcr. ISaturl'. Fr. Berlin, 1881, p. 88. 



I have no doubt that the two specimens (U. S. "Nat. Mus. Xo. 20095 a/7., 

 2009G jnn.) collected by Mr. Ohauler on the Tana Iliver belong to this 

 species in spite of some differences from the description of the single 

 type specimen (Mus. Berol, Xo. 9394) collected by llildebrandt at Taita. 



The chief differences consist in the single anal, as described by Peters, 

 against double in both our specimens, and in the somewhat greater 

 number of urosteges in the type. The latter difference, however, is 

 easily within the range of individual variation, and the dilference in 

 the anal seems hardly to be of much greater imi)ortance in this instance, 

 inasmuch as the specimens in all other respects seem to agree per- 

 fectly. There is the less room for doubt, as both Boulenger and Boettger 

 record the species from Somaliland (Ann. Mus. Genova (2) xii, 1892, 

 p. IT).; Zool. Anz., 1893, p. 119), <mr locality, consequently, being inter- 

 mediate. 



The chief characteristics of the species, viz, the very elongated head 

 and the great length of the frontal as compared with the supraoculars, 

 the former, consequently, being broadly in contact with the ineocular 

 and the i)refrontals widely separated from the supraoculars, are very 

 strongly marked in our spe{;imens, and Peters' description of the col- 

 oration agrees A'ery well with the larger one. Peters does not at all 

 describe the coloration of tlu^ head, wliicli is very characteristic, how- 



