198 CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES [Proc. 4th Ser. 



therefore, seems well worth while. In undertaking this study 

 we have again made use of material in the collections of 

 Stanford University and the University of California, and, 

 for this privilege, we are again indebted to Professors Charles 

 H. Gilbert and John O. Snyder of Stanford University, and 

 Dr. Joseph Grinnell of the University of California. The 

 snakes in the collection of the University of California are 

 distinguished by the letter C prefixed to their numbers in the 

 lists of specimens ; those from Stanford University, by the 

 letter S. When no letter is attached to its number the speci- 

 men is in the collection of the California Academy of Sciences. 



Several names have, in the past, been based upon, or ap- 

 plied to, gopher-snakes from the area under consideration. 



In 1835, Blainville described two kinds of gopher-snakes 

 from specimens collected by M. Botta in "California", a term 

 which, as then used, included Lower California. These he 

 called Coluber catenifer and Coluber vertebralis. In 1842, 

 Holbrook established the genus Pitiiophis for the eastern bull- 

 snake, which Daudin had described, in 1803, as Coluber 

 melanoleucus. In 1853, Baird and Girard placed Blainville's 

 Coluber catenifer in this genus Pituophis, and the following 

 year Dumeril and Bibron made the same disposition of his 

 Coluber vertebralis. 



Cope, in 1860, described the gopher-snake of the Cape 

 Region of Lower California under the name Pityophis hcema^ 

 tois, from specimens collected by John Xantus at Cape San 

 Lucas. In more recent publications, however, Cope (1875) 

 and other authors have recognized Blainville's description of 

 Coluber vertebralis as referring to this Lower California 

 species and, therefore, have called it Pituophis vertebralis. 



Blainville's description of Coluber catenifer is so meager 

 that one is left uncertain as to which kind of snake he had. 

 His plate indicates that he may have had the less brightly 

 colored coast race. Baird and Girard, in 1853, may be con- 

 sidered to have determined the subsequent use of the term by 

 using the name Pituophis catenifer for a specimen from San 

 Francisco. It would seem that this restriction of the name, 

 in the first general review of the genus, should be followed, 

 unless subsequent examination of the original type specimen 

 shows that it did not belonsf to this race. 



