874 THE ZOOLOGIST. 
authorities,* the authors of faunistic lists and popular works in 
this country still adhere to the generic separation of V. berus and 
aspis. An example of this inconsistency is to be found in the 
article ‘‘ Reptiles” in Cassell’s ‘ Natural History,’ which contains 
a figure of V. aspis, with the lettering “Common Viper,” which 
latter species is regarded, in the text, as generically distinct from 
the former ! 
The first blow to the old conception of the species of Vipers 
was dealt by Bosca, who described a new form from Spain, inter- 
mediate between V. aspis and V. ammodytes, which he named 
V. latastei.t He was shortly followed by Lataste, with a new 
subspecies, also from Spain, V. berus seoanei,{ intermediate 
between V. berus and V. aspis. That these forms are not to be 
regarded as hybrids between their allies is proved by the fact that 
the latter do not co-exist in the Spanish Peninsula. 
The chief object of this note is to show that, although V. berus 
and V. aspis must continue to be admitted as species, in spite of 
the complete transition from one to the other, there is no reason 
to maintain the form V. seoanei even as a subspecies, the characters 
upon which it was founded not being sufficiently constant. The 
following is the diagnosis published by Lataste :—“‘ Vipera seoanet 
rostrum leviter (sed scutellorum prominenti ex oculo ad oculum 
margine) excavatum, aspidis et beri intermedium, habet; frontalia 
parietaliaque scuta omnino desunt, vix majusculis, minoribus 
tamen quam illa que aspidwm girundicarum notavi, scutellis 
irregulariter in vertice nonnunquam conspicuis ; unica scutellorum 
serie inter oculos et supra labialia; cephaleis demum scutellis 
beri quam aspidis affinioribus. Preterea, cum beri et aspidis 
quarts et quinte supra, quinte et sexte subtus, seoanei vero 
quarte supra, quinte subtus labialibus oculus superponitur.” 
The Natural History Museum received in 1880, from M. Y. L. 
Seoane, a specimen which, except in the total absence of frontal 
and parietal shields, agrees with the above diagnosis; but it has 
recently received from the same generous correspondent five more 
specimens, three of which likewise entirely lack the sincipital 
shields, the two others, on the contrary, agreeing, in the presence 
* Cf. Lataste, Actes Soc. Linn. Bordeaux, (3) x. 1875, p. xxi. 
+ Bull. Soe. Zool. France, 1878, p. 116. 
{t Op. cit., 1879, p. 182. 
