EEVISION OF THE KING SNAKES. 91 



Habitat and Jiahits. — Nothing is recorded on the natural history of 

 this form. 



Range. — Conjunda is at present known only from the '^Cape 

 Kegion^' of Lower California, from La Paz to Cape San Lucas.- 



No published records for other localities than those given with the 

 list of specimens have been noted. 



Variation. — ^Little variation is to be expected in this form as at 

 present known, and, as brought out in the description, the speci- 

 mens examined are homogeneous in every respect. It will be noted 

 that in general the scutellation is close to the mean for hoylii, but dif- 

 ferences are to be seen in the much greater frequency of ten infralabial 

 plates than nine, in the more acute posterior angle of the frontal 

 plate, in the more elongate parietals, in the narrower head, in the 

 numerous light spots on the posterior portion of the head, and in 

 the basal shading of the white scales, and it is on these points that 

 this form is regarded as distinct. 



Affinities. — Gonjuncta has hitherto been considered as identical 

 with what we have called yumensis. Cope first noticed the basal 

 shading of the white scales (1860, 255) and later (1862, 301) called 

 attention to the similarity between specimens from Cape San Lucas 

 and Fort Yuma. He then based the name conjunda on the speci- 

 mens collected by Xantus at Cape San Lucas, and since that time 

 they have been regarded as practically identical with those from the 

 Yuma region. It is perhaps already plain why the separation has 

 been made, but it may be well to summarize the situation. It is 

 here held as certain that yumensis is derived directly from sflendida, 

 and that hoillii is likewise derived from yumensis. It is believed, for 

 the following reasons, that conjunda is more closely allied to hoylii 

 than to yumensis. 



1. The head markings of conjunda are rather frequently developed 

 in part, and sometimes in entirety, in specimens of hoylii in various 

 parts of its range, but especially in the San Diego region and in other 

 localities along the coast, but not in any specimen of yumensis yet 

 examined. 



2. The ranges of conjunda and yumensis apparently do not meet, 

 but are separated in northern Lower California by a southward, and 

 perhaps somewhat eastward extension of the range of hoylii. 



3. The similarity in the basal shading of the light scales of conjunda 

 and yumensis is not necessarily an indication of close afiinity. Indi- 

 viduals of hoylii from most diverse localities occasionally show this 

 shading in as marked a form as it appears in conjunda or typical 

 yumensis. In hoylii it must be regarded as an instance of reversion, 

 a situation that is duplicated frequently in other members of the 

 getulus group. 



186550— 21— Bull. 114 7 



