ire, subcaudals 77 (including terminal spine),
paired except for second, third and fourth; scale rows 19
from neck slightly beyond mid-body, fifth on left side ending
opposite 86th ventral; length from snout to vent 670 mm., tail
202 mm.

_Comparisons._--From _T. s. parietalis_, _T. s. ornata_
differs in its consistently pale ground color, olive instead
of dark brown or black. In respect to color-pattern _ornata_
stands in approximately the same relation to _parietalis_ as,
farther west, _T. s. infernalis_, a pale subspecies of the
California coast, stands in relation to _T. s. fitchi_.
Nevertheless, _fitchi_ consistently has a dark ground color,
whereas _parietalis_ is highly variable, and the color of an
occasional specimen (for example KU 17032 from Douglas County,
Kansas) matches _ornata_ in olive coloration. These unusually
pale specimens of _parietalis_ differ from _ornata_ in not
having a continuous black edge along each side of dorsal
stripe; black pigment of this area is concentrated into rows
of spots alternating with those of lower series. From _T. s.
infernalis_, _ornata_ differs in having paired black spots
on the ventrals and in having more than three series of red
crescents on dorsolateral area of each side.

_Remarks._--The type of _ornata_ seems to have been lost, and the
available information concerning it is far from satisfactory. In the
original description, Baird listed three specimens, purportedly from
"Indianola, Texas" (J. H. Clark, 438), from the Rio Grande, Texas (J.
H. Clark, 768), and from near San Antonio, Texas (Dr. Kennerley, no
number). None of these three specimens could have been _ornata_ as
conceived of by us because all were collected outside the geographic
range of _ornata_. However, there was also included a plate with a
drawing of a specimen and a reference to an earlier paper (Baird and
Girard, 1853) in which a specimen obtained by Col. Graham "Between
San Antonio and El Paso" was described. Smith and Brown (1946:72) have
presented evidence that this specimen figured (rather than any of the
three specifically mentioned) served as a basis for the plate, and
they therefore considered it to be the holotype of _ornata_, even
though Baird referred this specimen to "_Eutaenia parietalis_ Say" in
the same paper (1859) in which the original description of _ornata_
was published. Cope (1900:1079) listed