REPTILES. 65 



17. SpeiT}', W. L. Variation in the Common Garter Snake 

 {TJiamnopMs sirtalis) . 5th Ann. Kept. Mich. Acad. Sci., 1903, pp. 

 175-179. A discussion of the variation, scutellation and tail-length 

 of specimens of T. sirtalis from Eaton Count^^ Some of the speci- 

 mens are referred (erroneously) to 1\ sirtalis parietalis\ 



18. Ruthven, Alexander G. Butler's Garter Snake. Biol. Bull., 

 VII, 1904, pp. 289-299. In this paper the writer records Tharrmo- 

 phis hiftlerl from several localities in southern Michigan, shows the 

 distinctness of the form from T. sirtalis and that the specimens re- 

 fered by Clark to T. hrachystoma are referable to it, discusses the 

 habits, distribution, characters, variations and affinities and gives 

 the synonomy and a list of the known specimens. 



19. Ruthven, Alexander G. Notes on the Molluscs, Reptiles and 

 Amphibians of Ontonagon County, Michigan. 6th Ann. Rept. Mich. 

 Acad. Sci., 1904, pp. 188-192. Records of the species collected by 

 the writer in the Porcupine Mountains, Michigan, in 1903, with 

 notes on their occurrence. 



20. Clark, H. L. A Preliminary List of the Amphibia and Rep- 

 tilia of Michigan. 7th Ann. Rept. Mich. Acad. Sci., 1905, pp. 109- 

 110. This list, compiled with the assistance of Morris Gibbs and F. 

 Notestein, i^urports to be a list of Michigan reptiles with the locali- 

 ties (principally counties) in which the species have been observed. 

 Unfortunately it is based principally upon records the sources of 

 which are not given so that, while it is quite accurate as a list of 

 Michigan species, the careful student cannot accept the localities 

 as reliable. 



21. Notestein, F. N. The Ophidia of Michigan. 7th Ann. Rept. 

 Mich. Acad. Sci., 1905, pp. 112-125. The writer of this paper has 

 endeavored to give a synopsis of the reptiles of the state with keys 

 to make possible the easy determination of specimens. In reality 

 what he has done is to describe the species that may occur in the 

 state without giving any state records, so that, while the paper will 

 assist in determining Michigan specimens, it cannot be considered 



« 



as a monograph on Michigan herpetology. The paper is, further- 

 more, marred by very numerous typographical errors which, altho 

 it must be said not the fault of the writer, greath^ impair its use- 

 fulness to the general student. 



22. Whittiker, C. C. The Status of Eutaenia Irachy stoma. 7th 

 Ann. Rept. Mich. Acad. Sci., 1905, pp. 88-92. The writer compares 

 the published description of the tj^pe specimen of Thamrtophis 

 hracJiystoma with material of T. hiitleri and concludes that hrachy- 

 stomn is a svnonvm of the latter. 



9 



