\ 



134 JOURNAL, BOMBAY NATURAL lUST. SOCLETY, Vol. XXT. 



Zamenis mucosus (Linne). 



This is common, as much so perhaps as in most parts of India, but 

 decidedly less numerous than Z. diadema in Chitral. I obtained 20 

 specimens of which 7 were S S , and 13 $ $ . The largest was a $ 

 which measured 6 feet. A little one only 18 inches long when pursued 

 by an Irish terrier faced round, and bit the dog most viciously. 6,000 

 feet was the highest altitude at which I obtained a specimen. Three 

 specimens that had recently fed were found to contain toads {Bufo viridis) 

 when dissected. Most of the examples had only two loreal shields (1 + 1), 

 as in korros. In other parts of India it is quite unusual to find only two 

 of these shields. In one specimen there was but one loreal on the left 

 side with two on the right side. In one specimen there were 9 supralabials 

 with the 5th and 6th touching the eye on the right side, and in another 

 9 with the upper part of a divided 4th, the 5th and 6th touching the eye 

 on both sides. The ventrals in the S were 194 to 197 and in the 5 192 

 to 202. The subcaudals in the 6 were 112 to 119, and in the $ 109 to 

 122. The scales two heads-lengths behind the head were 17, in midbody 

 17 usually (once 16 and once 15), and two heads-lengths before the anus 

 12 or 14 (not influenced by sex). The rows became 16 invariably by the 

 absorption of the vertebral into the adjacent row on the left side. In the 

 succeeding steps the -Srd row above the ventrals disappears being absorbed 

 into the 2nd usually (rarely the 4th) . 

 Zamenis rhodorJiachis (Jan.). 



I collected 16 specimens all from elevations between 4,000 and 5,000 

 feet. Three of these conformed to variety typica, and the remainder to 

 variety ladacensis (Anderson). 



Of the 16, 7 were 6 6,^ 2 $ and one was not soxed. 

 Variety ladacensis is extremely like the species Z. ventrimaculatus (Gray). 

 So much so that I think it probable the two have been confused by most 

 if not all Avriters hitherto. Boulenger (Faun. Brit. Ind., 1890, p. 326) says 

 it diiFers in having more numerous ventrals and subcaudals, but that in 

 other structural characters it agrees with ventrimaculatus. With this I 

 cannot agree. In the first place the large series of both species that I 

 have examined shows that no difference can be claimed in the respective 

 ranges of the ventrals and subcaudals, and in the second place a very clear 

 distinction can be shown in the dentition of the two species. Thus, in 

 rhodorhachis a gap precedes the two last maxillary teeth which are much 

 enlarged, but in ventrimaculatus no such gap exists and the posterior teeth 

 are not enlarged.* This difference appears to me of sufficient importance 

 to warrant generic distinction between the two. 



I did not examine the dentition in every Chitral specimen, though I 



* My skull is from a specimen killed at Campbellpore, Punjab. 



