REVISION OF THE KING SNAKES. 115 



specializations in the structure of the copulatory organ. Since they 

 are specialized in this respect we must regard the low averages in num- 

 bers of scale rows, ventrals, and labials as also due to specialization. 

 -6. Splendida is the only member of the group not eliminated on 

 structural grounds. 



7. There are no structural peculiarities that can not be more easily 

 explained by assuming splendida as the ancestor. 



8. That splendida, as represented in southern New Mexico and 

 northern Chihuahua, possesses the only pattern from which all the 

 others may be simply and naturally derived is definitely indicated 

 by the variations and geographical distribution of (a) the white bars 



californiae< boyliu yumensis^ splendida — -^holbrooki >niger >getulii8 



I 



floridana 

 nitida conjuncta I 



brooksi 

 Fig. 38.— Diagram of the relationships of the forms of the getulus group. 



on the prefrontal and internasal scutes, (6) the subocular black spot, 

 (c) the other head markings, and (d) the body pattern. 



9. The region inhabited by splendida is the one theoretically most 

 favorable for being the center of preservation and dispersal of a 

 plains form of land snake. 



THE CALLIGASTER GROUP. 

 LAMPROPELTIS CALLIGASTER (Harlan). 



YELLOW-BELLIED KING SNAKE; EVANS KING SNAKE. 



Figs. 6, 39, 40. 

 1827. Coluber calligaster Harlan, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 5, 

 pt. 2, p. 359 (type locality, Missouri); Med. Phys. Researches, 1835, 

 p. 122. — Lampropeltis calligaster Cope, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadel- 

 phia, 1860, p. 255. — Strecker, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, vol. 21, 

 1908, p. 75. — HuRTER and Strecker, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, 

 vol. 18, no. 2, 1909, p. 26.— Hurter, same, vol. 20, no. 5, 1911, p. 187.— 

 Stejneger and Barbour, Check List, 1917, p. 87. — Ophibolus calligaster 

 Cope, Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., no, 1, 1875, p. 37.— Smith, Geol. Surv. Ohio, 

 vol. 4, 1882, p. 689.— Yarrow, Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., no. 24, 1882, 

 p. 94.— Cope, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 14, 1891, p. 610.— Garman, 

 H., Bull. Illinois State Lab. Nat. Hist., vol. 3, art. 13, 1892, p. 293.— 

 Hay, Annual Rep. Indiana State Board Agric, vol. 28, 1887, p. 210; 

 Batr. Rept. State Indiana, 17th Annual Rep. Indiana Dept. Geol. Nat. 

 Resources, 1892, pp. 515, 590; Batr. Rept. Indiana, 1893, p. 182.— 

 Hurter, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 6, no. 2, 1893, p. 255.— 

 Blatchley, 24th Ann. Rep. Dept. Geol. Nat. Res. Indiana, 1899, p. 

 545.— Cope, Rep. U. S. Nat. Mus. for 1898, 1900, p. 905, fig. 223, pi. 

 18, fig. 6.— Brown, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1901, p. 80.— 

 Strecker, Trans. Texas Acad. Sci. for 1901, vol. 4, pt. 2, no. 5, 1902, 

 p. 4.— Ditmars, Reptile Book, 1907, pp. 341, 355.— Somes, Proc. Iowa 

 Acad. Sci., 1912, p. 150.— Strecker, Baylor Bull., vol. 18, no. 4, 1915, 

 p. 38. — Coronella calligaster Boulenger, Cat. Snakes Brit. Mus., vol. 2, 

 1894, p. 198. 



