749 



A POPULAR TREATISE ON THE COMMON INDIAN 



SNAKES. 



Illustrated by Coloured Plates and Diagrams 



BY 



Major F. Wall, I.M.S., C.M.Z.S. 



Part XX (luitli Plate XX, Texh fi^cjure and Mwp.^ 



(Continued from i?age 568 of this Voluine.^ 



Botli the subjects of this paper belong to the genus Simotes, one 

 of the many into which aglyphous or fangless colubrines are 

 divided. The geniis contained 22 species when Mr. Bonlenger's 

 Catalogue appeared in 1894. Its representatives are denizens of 

 the Southern part of the Asiatic Continent from the Punjab to 

 SoiTtliern China, and range through the Malayan Archipelago from 

 Sumatra as far East as Timor, and as far North as the Philippines 

 and Formosa. Of the 22 species no less than 11 occur within our 

 Indian Dominions.* 



The tj^pes are the Indian arnensis, the Malayan octolineatus, and 

 the Malayasian p^crpurascens. 



SIMOTJES ABNPJNSIS (Shaw). 

 The Common Kukri Snake. 



History. — Seba appears to have been the first to depict this 

 snake, his illustration dating back to the 5'"ear 1735. Later in the 

 same Century — in the year 1796 — Russell figured and remarked 

 upon it twice in his first volume (Plates XXXV and XXXVIII). 



Nomenclature. — (a) Scientific. — Dumeriland Bibron are responsi- 

 ble for the generic name which is from the Greek " simos" a snub- 

 nose and refers to the rostral shield which is reflected back on to 

 the snout to a remarkable degree in all the kukri snakes. (See figure 

 A of Diagram.) Arni from which the snake derives its specific 

 name is a town close to Arcot in the Madras Presidency, where 

 the subject of Russell's Plate XXXV was captured. 



(&) English. — The common kukri snake seems to me an appro- 

 priate name for it. As already mentioned in a previous article of 

 this series (Vol. XIX, p. 556) the name is suggested by the blade 



*It is extremely dubious whether the two g-enera Oligodon and Simotes established 

 by Boie and Dumeril and Bibron respectively, and upheld by Dr. G-iinther and Mr. 

 Bouleno'er deserve separate recog'nition. The characters made use of to distinaruish 

 them based mainly on the presence or absence of palatine orpteryg'oid teeth 

 are not tenable. I have skulls of 1 1 species (H 5'«»o^es and o Oligodon) and can 

 find no important constant difEerences between them. A study of the lepidosis 

 too fails to reveal any single character, or combination of characters that can 

 justify the division. I feel certain therefore that the two will have to be amalga- 

 mated under Boie's title Oligodon which is the older. 



13 



