Dr. A. Giinther on a new Snake fy-om Bahia, 335 Of the genus Oxyrhopus I have seen the foUowhig species : — O. Clcelia, O. formosus, O. petolariusy O. immaculatus, and O. tri-geminus. The last-named one and O. petolarius are the most common. Of O. immaculatus I have seen a single specimen. Of the family Elapidse two species are very common — Flaps lemnis-catus and E, corallinus. The variety of the latter with white-edged black rings never attains but a small size ; it differs also in colora-tion from the others, being brick-red. I am therefore inclined to con-sider it as a distinct species — the E. circinalis of Dum. and Bibron. Addition to Dr. Wucherer's x\rticle on the Ophidians OF Bahia. By Dr. A. Gunther, F.Z.S., etc. Almost simultaneously with the concluding part of Dr. Wucherer's paper "On the Ophidians of Bahia," I received from him a small Snake, which on examination proved to be a new species of the genus Dromictis. Mr. Cope has lately* pointed out the complete gradation existing between the most slender species of Dromicus and the stout forms of the genus Liophis, dividing them into six divisions, characterized by the structure of the scales and by the relative length of the tailf . This new species would enter the division Lygophis of his arrange-ment, having the scales without grooves, and a tail the length of which is one-fourth of the total. Dromicus (Lygophis) Wuchereri, sp. nov. Scales in fifteen rows. Loreal square ; one praeorbital, reaching to the upper surface of the head, but not touching the vertical ; two postorbitals ; eight upper labials, the third, fourth, and fifth enter-ing the orbit (the third with its posterior angle only) ; the seventh labial forms only a small portion of the lip, and on one side it is * Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philad. 1862, p. 75. t Mr. Cope's general observations on the species of these genera are perfectly correct, and the divisions proposed by him are most convenient for the determi-nation of the species, but they do not appear to me to be more natural groups than those which we had before ; for instance, Liophis Reginee is certainly more closely allied to L. Merremii and to L. Cobella than to Dromicus TemminckU; yet L. Re-gints and D. TemmincMi are united into one group, and the two others into another. L. conirostris cannot be separated from L. Reginm. And if Liophis and Dromicus be brought into so close a proximity as they are by Mr. Cope, Zamenis and certain species of Coronella, Leptodira, &c., cannot be kept at a distance.
BioStor
