214 



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



in one of the specimens labelled wrayi, and it is noteworthy that the specimens 

 labelled wrayi and flower i are all from the same locality, viz., Perak. The failure of the 

 prefrontal to meet the second supralabial is only partial, for this contact occurs on one 



ABC 

 Fig. 24. — Distira (Hydrophis) floweri , x i-J. After Boulenger in Proc. Zool. Soc, 1898. 



side in one of the specimens. I have observed the same abnormality in eight of the 

 large series I consider spiralis. I am strongly of opinion these specimens should be 

 regarded as an abnormal form of spiralis (Shaw). 



A B • C 



Fig. 25. — Distira alcocki. 



alcocki (Wall). -Last year I described '• what I considered at the time a very well 

 marked new species under the above title. I could not satisfactorily view the teeth, 

 as the specimen was a very small one, and placed it with the Hydrophis on account of 

 the slender proportions of the^ieck. 



In most respects very like brugmaiisii the fact that the prefrontal shield did not 

 meet the second supralabial, taken with the low number of scales in the neck (25), and 

 body (jo), and the small number of ventrals (282) made it difficult to know where to 

 place it. I rind now, however, that of 65 specimens in my notes which I identify as 

 spiralis the prefrontal fails to meet the second supralabial in seven other instances, 2 

 including the type-specimen of spiralis in the British Museum. I find also that other 

 examples afford parallel or nearly parallel departures from the normal with reference 

 to the three other details made mention of, and so I have no hesitation whatever in 

 considering this snake now as 7 a somewhat aberrant example of sipralis. 



The characters upon which reliance is placed to separate spiralis from cyanocincta 

 are all subject to some variation in both species, and specimens occur combining these 

 characters sometimes so intimately that it is difficult to decide with which form to place 

 them ; indeed, it seems to me very dubious whether they can be considered apart. Of 

 12 specimens labelled brugmansii in the British Museum, a form I hold to be syn- 

 onymous with spiralis, three I consider are misplaced, and should be included with 



1 Memoirs As. Soc. Bengal, 1906, p. 298. 



2 I have signally failed to bring these six specimens together by any combination of characters 



