NOTES ON AUSTRALIAN TYPHLOPID^ — -WAITE. 
61 
namely, T, nigrescens , Gray, T . regince , Boulenger, — each of which 
has twenty-two transverse scales and a rounded snout — and 
T. ligatus , Peters, readily recognisable by the narrow rostral 
and the twenty-four rows of scales. In T. proximus , as already 
mentioned, the snout is decidedly acute, and the scales are arranged 
in twenty series. In Plate xv., figs. 3 and 4 are drawn from the 
type specimen, and figs. 1 and 2 from an average example of 
T. nigrescens introduced for the purposes of comparison ; in the 
latter, four body scales are in contact with each parietal, while 
in T, proximus there are only three, owing to the smaller number 
in the transverse series. The figures being drawn to the same 
scale (four times natural size) it will be seen that the head of 
this species is relatively larger than that of T. nigrescens , for the 
specimens are of practically equal length, being 405 millim. and 
395 millim. respectively. 
It will be noticed that Jan’s figures* are fairly accurate, and 
McCoy, although describing T. nigrescens , has figuredf at any 
rate the head of the species I here determine. 
Since the foregoing was in type, I have written to Professor 
Sir Frederick McCoy, and mentioned how closely his figure 
resembles T . proximus ; and although in the text he states that 
the body scales are in twenty-two rows, I ventured to ask him to 
re-count the rows in the specimen figured, and I quote the follow- 
ing from his reply : — “ First I must thank you for drawing my 
attention to a misprint, — in my description of Typhlops nigrescens 
in my Prodromus of the Zoology of Victoria, Dec. xi., — of 
twenty-two scales instead of twenty, which I find in my MSS. 
and in all the specimens...” He further mentions that in his 
figures (Plate 103, figs. la. and \c.) the rostral is not drawn quite 
sufficiently prominent; this would increase the similarity between 
his figures and mine, and as he assures me that all the figures on 
the Plate were drawn from the same specimen (although, owing 
to the apparent discrepancy in the number of body scales, I had 
suggested to him that they were not), it appears evident that 
Plate 103 illustrates T. proximus and not T. nigrescens . The 
anal spot is, however, more conspicuous than in any of my 
specimens, but is subject to much variation, being absent in 
some examples. 
As Prof. McCoy mentions that all his specimens possess the 
character of having only twenty rows of scales on the body, it would 
appear that there are no examples of T . nigrescens in the National 
Museum, Melbourne, and we may therefore provisionally infer 
that this species does not occur in Victoria, and while it is very 
* Icon. Gen. des Ophidiens, 9 Liv., pi. i., fig. la., et seq. 
t Prod. Zool. Victoria, ii., pi. 103. 
