280 JOURNAL, BOMBAY NATURAL HIST. SOCIETY, Vol. XXI. 



for>i, long time thought the latter would prove to be an aberrant example 

 of the former. 



The type and only specimen of gammiei is in the Indian Museum, and 

 wheti I examined it some years back, I remarked on the great similarity 

 in colour and lepidosis between it andfasciatus, and was inclined to think 

 the two would probably have to be united. I was deterred from voicing 

 this opinion firstly, because fasciatus had never been recorded from the 

 Eastern Himalayas, and secondly, on account of scale differences. Now 

 that the first objection to my opinion has been removed, it is worth 

 enumerating the scale differences noted. 



(1) First there is the fact that there are in (jammiei 19 scales in midbody 

 whereas in fasciatus there are 17. (2) The ventrals and sub-caudals in 

 gammiei are in excess of the ranges given by Mr. Boulenger (Cat. Vol. I, 

 p. 3-j8) for fasciatus. (3) The loreal in gainmei fails to touch the eye, 

 but vn fasciatus it usually does so. 



To take the scale rows in fasciatus, they are 17 shortly behind the neck, 

 and remain so to well behind the middle of the body, then reducing to 15. 

 Ivi gammiei t\iey are 17 for about 6 headslengths behind the head, then 

 become 19 by a division of the 3rd row above the ventrals, and remain 19 

 till behind the middle of the body where they reduce to 17 and subse- 

 quently to 15. Now it is no unusual thing to find individuals in many 

 species that exhibit the same anomaly (as I believe this is) ; the scale rows 

 for a variable length in the body exceeding the normal by two. I have 

 seen this in more than one species of Dipsadomorphus, Oligodon and Simotcs 

 in Silijhura ocellata Ancistrodon Mmalayanus and other snakes. The 

 peculiarity of the scales in gammiei need not therefore deter one from 

 considering it an Siherx&nt fasciatus. 



As regards ventrals and subcaudals, Mr. D'Abreu reports the counts in 

 his specimen as 214+98, thus according well with those in the type of 

 gammiei, which Blanford recorded as 214+101. (I however make them 

 222+100). 



With reference to the third point, Mr. D'Abreu mentions that the loreal 

 is pointed behind (he says anteriorly, but obviously means posteriorly), 

 but does not reach the eye. This is the exact condition in the type of 

 gammiei. . 



I examined the type of gammiei beside specimens of fasciatus, and in 

 every detail except those referred to above, the two forms seemed to 

 agree. The colouration is exactly as in fasciatus. I feel very confident 

 now that gammiei is an aberrant example of fasciatus, and as it was de- 

 scribed first, the species should in future be known as gammiei, Anderson's 

 u&vs\Q fasciatus being suppressed. 



« F. WALL, Major, i.m.s., c.m.z.s. 



Almora, l.s^ March 1911. 



