170 JOURNAL, BOMBAY NATURAL HIST. SOCIETY, Vol. XXIII. 



Oligodon travancoricus and Jerdon's O. venustus. With the latter I am very 

 familiar. I examined specimens of each, side by side, and failed to discover 

 any reason for separating the two. Turning to Mr. Boulenger's Catalogue 

 (Vol. II, 1894, pp. 235 and 236), the only differences are apparently as 

 follows : — 



travancoricus. venustus. 



(1) The frontal shield is shorter The frontal shield is as long as the 

 than the parietals. parietals. 



(2) 3 infralabials touch the anterior 4 infralabials touch the anterior 

 chin shields. chin shields. 



(3) Dorsally there are bars. Dorsally there are paired spots, 



usually united mesially. 



(4) Habitat. — Travancore Hills. Habitat. — South West India. 

 With regard to the first point I found that in one of the three specimens 



of travancoricus the frontal was fully as long as the parietals. The contact 

 of the infralabials and anterior chin shields is not very constant in many 

 species of this genus. 



The dorsal mark in venustus are subject to considerable variation, the 

 degree to which the spots are separated or confluent, as they are in other 

 species, notably 0. subgriseus. In the specimens of travancoricus indenta- 

 tions in the cross bars mesially and laterally are as pronounced as one 

 sees in some specimens of venustus. Finally the habitat of travancoricus is 

 contained within that of venustus. I think there can be little doubt that 

 travancoricus has no claims to be considered distinct from venustus. 



f. wall, g.m.z.s., f.l.s., 



Major, i.m.s. 

 Almora, 2bth February 1914. 



No. XXXIV.— ARE NOT THE SNAKES SIMOTES THEOBALDI 



(Gunther) and SIMOTES BEDDOMII (Boulbnger) ONE 



AND THE SAME SPECIES? 



In Mr. Boulenger's Fauna of British India, Reptilia and Batrachia (1890, 

 p. 314) a snake is described under the title Simotes beddomii, which I cannot 

 dissociate from Gunther's Simotes theobaldi for the following reasons. 1 have 

 examined the two type specimens (the only specimens known) of Simotes 

 beddomii in the British Museum, and being familiar with 'S. theobaldi, at once 

 remarked upon the similarity between the two. A comparison of the two 

 supposed species failed to show me any difference between them worthy of 

 remark. In Boulenger's Catalogue (Vol. II, 1894) both are figured on plate 

 IX, and the striking similarity between them is very noticeable. The 

 descriptions of the two on pages 229 and 230, critically examined, show 

 differences as follows : — 



beddomii. theobaldi. 



Ventral, 167 to 168. Ventrals 171 to 180. 



Subcaudals 43 to 46. Subcaudals 34 to 42. 



Tail i to i bodylength. Tail J^ to }^ bodylength. 



A few scattered ventral spots pos- No spots on belly or square black 

 teriorly. spots posteriorly. 



Habitat — Wynad. Habitat — Burma . 



I have now seen at least 15 specimens of Simotes tlieobaldi from Burma 

 with a range of ventrals from 164 to 180, and a range of subcaudals from 

 30 to 42. The trifling differences in the ventral shields recorded in Mr. 

 Boulenger's work therefore disappear. 



