94 JOURNAL, BOMB A Y NA TUBAL BISTORT SOCLETY, Vol. XIV. 



as a result of accident, or oveu be wholly absent during the shedding 

 process which occurs periodically. (d) Certain harmless snakes, 

 notably members of the Lycodon and Dipsas genera, are peculiar 

 in having in their maxillge a lengthened fang-like tooth in the 

 identical situation in which a true fang is placed, and unless this be 

 broken off and carefully examined beneath a lens, it is often impossi- 

 ble to decide whether this is a solid tooth contained in the maxilla of 

 a harmless variety, or a grooved, or canaliculate one, the characteristic 

 lethal weapon of a poisonous species. 



2. Another favourite rule which is applied by many, and one pro- 

 vocative of many erroneous conclusions, is with reference to the 

 presence or absence of a loreal scale. 



Fallacies. — (a) Now a very great deal of confusion has been occa- 

 sioned with regard to this scale by the fact that various writers on the 

 subject hold different views, and some regard as a loreal what others 

 of equal repute and authority designate by some, other appellation. 

 It follows, therefore, that where a difference of opinion exists in the 

 minds of experts it must necessarily be conveyed to the minds of 

 those who have had to acquire their knowledge in the first place from 

 works written by these experts. For this reason I have carefully 

 refrained in my appended key from making any allusion to the 

 loreal, though at the same time its significance with the aid of other 

 points has by no means been lost sight of.* (b) At best, the presence 

 or absence of a loreal, such as I have represented it in the footnote, 

 is an uncertain guide, as poisonous snakes are met with possessing a 



* The median of three or more scales intervening between the eye and the nostril lying 

 above the labials in a more or less horizontal direction and distinct from any of the scales 

 situated on the crown of the head constitute loreals (see L fig. 3). If more than one scale 

 occupies this median position all are called loreals (see fig. 5). Should scales occupying this 

 position be a continuation of any scales from the top of the head on to the face as often 

 occurs in the whipsnakes (DriopUs) they are not loreals [see I, Prf. fig, 4). Again, if only 

 two scales intervene between the eye and the nostril a loreal cannot exist (see figs. 1 and 2). 

 Where the nostril is situated in the middle of a scale (as in figs. 4 and 6) that scale must 

 always be counted in. It appears to me unreasonable to consider it possible for a loreal 

 either to touch the eye or the nostril as some authors describe. In the first case such a scale 

 has every claim to be considered a pr^-ocular, and in the latter a nasal, and in both cases 

 the term loreal should be disc mragei as a misapplication. It is inconsistent and confusing 

 to call identically situated scales, in one instance, a prse-ocular, and in another (only on the 

 plea of being somewhat lengthei.ed) a loreal. To simplify is the first step towards popularis- 

 ing a subject, to confuse on the other hand is to breed disgust and discouragement. 



