Vol. IX] VAN DENBURGH &■ SLEVIN— GOPHER-SNAKES 199 



In the same publication (p. 71) Baird and Girard, in 1853, 

 proposed the name Pititophis wilkesii for two specimens from 

 "Puget Sound, Or.," with gastrosteges numbering 215 and 

 209, and two from "Oregon", with counts of 209 and 213. 

 This name evidently is based upon specim.ens of the coast race 

 and has been regarded as a synonym of Pituophis catenifer. 



Baird and Girard, in 1853 (p. 72), proposed still another 

 name for a western gopher-snake. This was Pituophis annec- 

 tens, based upon one specimen, with 243 gastrosteges, col- 

 lected at San Diego, California, by Dr. J. L. Leconte. 



In 1853, also, Hallowell described Pityophis heermannii 

 from a specimen collected on the Cosumnes River, California, 

 His description does not state the number of gastrosteges. 

 The locality is one where specimens more or less intermediate 

 in character but most like the coast race are to be expected. 

 The name may, therefore, be treated as a synonym of Pituo- 

 phis catenifer. The original specimen may perhaps still be 

 preserved in the collection of the Philadelphia Academy of 

 Natural Sciences. 



In 1852, Baird and Girard described as Churchillia bellona 

 a gopher-snake collected by General Churchill on the left 

 bank of the Rio Grande, at the crossing near Presidio del 

 Norte. Tlie following year, they placed this species in the 

 genus Pituophis. Later, the name Pituophis bellona or 

 Pityophis soyi bellona was used by Cope and other authors 

 for gopher-snakes from parts of California, Arizona and the 

 Great Basin. Stejneger, however, in 1893, called attention 

 to the fact that this name is really a synonym of Pituophis 

 sayi, and cannot properly be applied to another race. Stejne- 

 ger proposed a new name, Pituophis catenifer deserticola, for 

 this western race to which the name bellona had been misap- 

 plied. Stejneger mentions no type specimen, names no type 

 locality and gives no characterization of Pituophis catenifer 

 deserticola other than that it is the "richly-colored form from 

 the Great Basin and the southwestern deserts" which must be 

 distinguished from Pituophis catenifer by "the totality of the 

 characters," as the number of smooth rows of lateral scales 

 will not serve for this purpose. He merely proposed a substi- 

 tute name. 



