204 



MAJOR F. WALL, I.M.S., C.M.Z.S. 



Hydrophis atriceps, Gunther, loc. cit., p. 371, pi. xxv, fig. i. 

 Aturia lindsayi, Gray in Zool. Misc., 1842, p. 61. 

 Hydrophis lindsayi, Gray, Cat., 1849, P- 5°- 



,, ,, Gunther, loc. cit., p. 371. 



? ,, fasciatus, Peters in Mon. Berl. Ac, 1872, p. 849, pi. i, fig. 1. 



,, , , Boulgr. in Blanford, Fauna Brit. Ind. Rept. and Batrach., 



1890, p. 404. 



,, „ Sclater t List Snakes, Ind. Mus., 1891, p. 63. Nos. 8257, 



8259, 8261, 8264, 8265, 13393. 



,, ,, Boulgr., Cat. Brit. Mus., 1896, iii, p. 281. 



,, ,, Wall in Mem. As. Soc. Bengal, 1906, p. 285. 



,, melanocinctus, Wall, loc. cit., p. 287. 



,, cantoris, Sclater, loc. cit., p. 64, No. 8232. 



,, leptodira, Cantor in Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1840, p. 311, pi. lvi. 



brookii, Gunther in Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1872, p. 597 and fig. 

 Distira rhombifer, Boulgr. in Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. 1900, p. 306. 



ABC 



Fig. 15. — Distira fiiseiala. 



A B C 



Fig. 16. — Hydrophis brookii. After Gunther, Proc. Zool. Soc, 1872, p. 597. 



I have examined 38 examples of this snake including the four species leptodira 

 (Cantor), brookii (Gunther) , rhombifer (Boulenger), and melanocincta (Wall) , all of which 

 I consider the same. It is very well differentiated, as much so as any of the preceding. 



In bodily configuration, general appearance, colour, and markings it is exactly 

 like gracilis, a fact which has led to the confusion of the two, though there are many, 

 and considerable differences between them. 



