326 CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES [Peoc. 4th Ser. 



regarded them as identical with the mainland Dromicus chani- 

 issonis, sometimes as one or two distinct varieties (spotted 

 and striped) of this mainland species, sometimes as a distinct 

 species, D. hiserialis, with or without a subspecies, D. biserialis 

 habelii. As Garman put it, "there is nothing in the published 

 evidence to show that the striped form, the spotted form, that 

 with two postorbitals, and that with three do not occur 

 amongst the individuals of any of the localities inhabited by 

 this snake. Giinther's type has three postorbitals and is spot- 

 ted, Dr. Baur's specimen has three postorbitals and is striped, 

 and Steindachner's varieties, both striped and spotted, have 

 but two postorbitals." 



Even as regards the generic term to be applied to these 

 snakes, there has not been agreement among herpetologists. 

 Giinther at first placed them in the genus Herpetodryas, but 

 later followed Peters in referring them to the genus Dromicus 

 of Bibron. Here they have been placed also by Steindachner 

 and Boulenger. Cope, in 1889, applied to them the generic 

 name Opheomorphus Fitzinger, but Garman has shown that 

 this is a synonym of Liophis Wagler, being founded on the 

 same type. Garman reverted to Fitzinger's Or o phis of 1843 — 

 the type of which he states is Coronella chamissonis Wiegm. — 

 because he held that the species of the Galapagos Archipelago 

 of Chile, and of Peru differed generically from the West 

 Indian species, which he retained in Bibron's genus Dromicus. 

 Still later. Cope divided all these snakes into three genera: 

 Dromicus Bibron, with no scale-pits; Monobothris Cope, with 

 one scale-pit; and Alsophis Fitzinger, with two scale-pits. 

 Monobothris Cope has as type Dromicus chamissonis, and is 

 therefore a synonym of Fitzinger's Orophis which was based 

 upon the same species. Stejneger has called attention to the 

 fact that Bibron's Dromicus, 1842, is preoccupied by Dromica 

 Dejean, 1826, and has revived Fitzinger's Leimadophis for 

 the species which normally have no scale-pits; but the recent 

 ruling of the Committee on Nomenclature of the International 

 Congress sanctions the use of the name Dromicus. Leima- 

 dophis therefore must revert to the synonymy. 



We thus have left three generic names — Dromicus Bibron, 

 1842, based upon a West Indian species without scale-pits; 

 Orophis Fitzinger, 1843, established upon the Chilian species 



