128 Mr. N. Eoseu — Reply to Mr. G. A. Boulenger. 



given it some significance with therest. But toMi'.Bouhnger, 

 who seems still to adhere to it, this difference should he of 

 such importance that he ought to he very far from thinking 

 that these two snakes are identical. Upon examination o£ 

 tlie specimens of P. pulverulentus from the Zo6logical Mu- 

 seum of Copenhagen, whicli have been kindly placed at my 

 disposal, I have also found that the difference between this 

 species and A. Lilljehorgi, described by me, is really so 

 great that it is quite out of the question that they are the 

 same, as ]\lr. Boulenger maintains, and so I am of opinion 

 that I have the right still to adhere to its being a new genus, 

 although under another name {Anisodontes), as I overlooked 

 the fact that Anisodon has already been applied to a 

 fossil mammal. However, 1 shall please Mr. Boulenger with 

 the information that the difference between them has in some 

 degree been lessened for Jiim by the observations I have 

 made upon P. pulverulentus. The fact is that 1 have seen 

 one specimen with well-developed hypapophyses also on 

 the posterior dorsal vertebrae — this being quite contrary to 

 Mr. Boulenger's own statements, so that I expect the 

 pleasure will not be altogether unmixed to him. Yet it will 

 be evident from what has been stated above that this has no 

 real importance so far as this question is concerned, while, on 

 the other hand, it tends to confirm my opinion that the 

 hypapophyses have not the great systematic value which 

 Mr. Boulenger maintains in his Cat. Snakes. 



But enough on this subject! Just as strange as this is 

 Mr. Boulengei's doubt as to the correctness of my statement 

 that Chrysopelea ornata sometimes has well-developed 

 hypapophyses also in the posterior region, for one can 

 hurdty imagine a greater inconsistency than this — first to 

 maintain the great importance of the hypapophyses as a 

 systematic characteristic, then, without changing one's opinion 

 un this point, to identijy one snake having hypapophyses with 

 another without them, and at last to doubt the statement that 

 with the same species these apophyses are sometimes present, 

 sometimes ahsent ! Or have these apophyses a systema- 

 tic value for Chrysopelea and other Dipsadomorphince and 

 Coluhrinoe, hut not for my Dipsadomorphine Anisodon ? 

 Add to this that Mr. Boulenger does not mention the other 

 species — Helicops modestus, Gthr., //. leopardinus, Scldeg., 

 and Tretanorhinus intermedius^ sp. n. (pp. 170, 171) — wliich 

 I have given as a proof of the variation and comparative 

 unimportance of this feature for classification, and I think that 

 Mr. Boulenger s " Remarks " icill ajypear to be unfounded. 



Mr. Boulenger calls upon those who possess s])ecimens of 



