The little snake to which Cope, in 1860,[33] gave the name _Hypsiglena ochrorhynchus_ was first described from specimens secured at Cape San Lucas, Lower California. It has since been found to range across Arizona and northern Mexico to Texas. As recently as 1893, so little was known of the distribution of this snake in California that Dr. Stejneger,[34] in recording the single specimen secured by the Death Valley Expedition in the Argus Range, Inyo County, California, thought that it added a species to the known fauna of the State. This snake had, however, already been taken at San Diego, California, as mentioned by Professor Cope[35] in 1883. More recently, the species has been recorded by Cope[36] from Witch Creek, San Diego County, and by myself[37] from the Cuyamaca Mountains, San Diego County; Strawberry Valley and San Jacinto, Riverside County, and Hesperia, San Bernardino County. [Footnote 33: Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1860, p. 246.] [Footnote 34: N. A. Fauna, no. 7, 1893, p. 204.] [Footnote 35: Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1883, p. 32.] [Footnote 36: Report, U. S. Nat. Mus. 1898 (1900), p. 954.] [Footnote 37: Occas. Papers, Cal. Acad. Sci. 5, 1897, p. 180.] These localities are all in the Desert and San Diegan faunal areas. It was with much interest, therefore, that I found this snake in the Californian Fauna close to the edge of the Pacific Fauna. The specimen was secured near Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, several hundred miles beyond the range of the species as previously known. It was found under a pile of recently cut hay, at an altitude of about eight or nine hundred feet, in what is locally known as the warm belt of the foothills, where _Bascanion laterale_, _Cnemidophorus tigris undulates_, and _Amphispiza belli_ also occur. ON THE SHAPE OF THE PUPIL IN THE REPTILIAN GENUS ARIZONA There has been, among herpetologists, much diversity of opinion as to the merits of Kennicott's genus _Arizona_. The validity of the single species for which he proposed the name _Arizona elegans_ has, I believe, never been questioned, but the known generic characters have been rather inadequate. Accordingly, while some authors have followed Kennicott, others have referred the species variously to the genera _Pituophis_ of Holbrook, _Rhinechis_ of Michahelles, or _Coluber_ of Linnæus. I believe that all authors (myself included) who mention the point at all describe the eye of this snake as showing a round pupil. This is true of most alcoholic specimens, for in these the pupil usually is dilated. In two living specimens, however, I find that the pupil is slightly irregular in outline so that it appears somewhat eccentric, that it varies considerably in size from time to time, and that it is distinctly elliptic, with the long diameter vertical, but becomes nearly round when dilated. Some alcoholic specimens also show the pupil somewhat contracted and elliptic.