REPTILIA. 
21 
It is true that in Steindachner’s description, of Euprepes stoliczkai, there is said to be a 
r °w of broader shields beneath the tail. But then the only difference stated to exist between 
E- stoliczkai and E. kargilensis is that in the former there are five, in the latter four supra- 
labials in front of the infraorbital. That this character is of no specific value is proved by 
the circumstance that both forms occur together in the present collection, and that there are 
some specimens which have four shields on one side of the head and five on the other. Now, 
some of the specimens before me are typical E. kargilensis from the same locality as the ori- 
ginal specimens procured by Dr. Stoliczka himself in 1865. The only other distinction 
between the descriptions of Euprepes stoliczkai and E. kargilensis is that in the former the 
noddle denticulations on the anterior edge of the ear are larger than the others, in the latter 
the uppermost is largest. This is certainly of no importance. 
In different individuals the number of scales round the body varies from thirty-two to 
thirty-eight, not depending apparently on age. In one very young specimen from Mataian 
there are only twenty- eight rows, but this individual is so immature, that its characters are ill 
niarked, and it perhaps belongs to the last species. The usual number is thirty-four or tliirty- 
The colouration appears very constant ; the back is brownish-olive, rather paler towards the 
S1 des, and spotted, the spots consisting of a whitish dot with a larger blackish mark behind or 
a t the side of it. These spots sometimes, but not often, tend to form longitudinal lines. Sides 
w ith a broad band of dark olive brown broken by small pale spots and extending from the 
e ye to the root of the tail and sometimes continued as a narrower broken line down the tail. 
few dark marks forming irregular longitudinal lines on the upper surface of the tail ; lower 
parts bluish- white. 
Order OPHIDIA. 
Family — TYPIIL OPIUM. 
16. Typhlops poeuectus, var. 
Stoliczka: Jour. As. Soc. Bengal, 1871, xl, Pt. 2, p. 426, PI. xxv, figs. 1-4. 
1, Ambor in the Jhilam valley, north-east of Mari. 
The only specimen of a Typhlops in the collection is evidently that mentioned in Dr. 
foliezka’s diary of the 18th July, and considered by him a new species. It differs in some 
Respects from the description of Typlilops porrectus, but still agrees so nearly with that form, 
iat I do not like to distinguish it on the strength of a single specimen. 
The solitary example obtained is so tightly coiled towards the tail, that all the caudal por- 
0n is difficult to examine. The following is a brief description. 
Scales smooth, shining, in eighteen longitudinal rows. I count (with great difficulty owing 
. 0 the condition of the specimen) 393 scales along the body and eight along the tail. The body 
I s much compressed posteriorly, but this is probably due to pressure when coiled. The diame- 
ei is nearly the same throughout, the circumference about one-twentictli of the length. 
Head short and flat, rostral occupying about one-third of the upper surface, and having its 
^ ei ’al margins parallel above ; below it is scarcely narrower. Eronto-nasal united to the nasal 
°' e the nostril, separate below, the nasals extending a little beliind the end of the rostral, 
