Dr. Andrew Smith in 1829 more closely watched its habits, and considered that its peculiar dentition was sufficient to separate it from the _Oligodon_ (few-toothed) family, under the new generic name of _Anodon_, with the specific _typus_ to mark it as a distinct type. Afterwards he found that the word _Anodon_ had been already adopted by naturalists for a shell-fish, and he contented himself therefore with Wagler’s name _Dasypeltis_, adding _inornatus_ for its specific, otherwise _D. scaber_. It is a small, slender snake, rarely exceeding 2-1/2 feet in length, and of an inconspicuous brownish colour. That it is an extremely slender little snake is evident from the portion of spine copied from the skeleton in the museum of R. C. S., and given in the chapter on egg-eating snakes. Jourdan’s name _Rachiodon_, though the best that had hitherto been assigned to the spine-toothed tree snake, was yet rather vague, as the teeth might be anywhere along the spinal column; and Professor Owen still further improved upon this name by calling it _Deirodon_, neck-toothed; for though, as already stated, a snake has no true ‘neck,’ the word _Deirodon_ designates the position of those gular teeth; and for convenience, everybody speaks of a snake’s ‘neck’ in allusion to the part immediately behind the head. So the little egg-eating tree snake is equally well entitled to the generic names of _Oligodon_, few teeth; _Rachiodon_, spine teeth; _Anodon_, toothless (as far as true teeth are concerned); and _Deirodon_, neck-toothed. In habits it differs entirely from the _Oligodontidæ_ family, which are ground snakes. The Deirodons are frequently found concealed under the loose bark of dead trees; and Dr. A. Smith observed three species all having a like organization, which induced him to conclude that all feed alike on birds’ eggs. As very few snakes have such an exceptionally distinguishing organization as the _Deirodon_, few are so happy as to escape with only half a score of titles. Many species that have been longer known have had their names similarly improved upon by fifty naturalists, and are still undergoing renomination as new observers discover closer alliances with one or another family. This is particularly the case in America, where a nomenclature entirely differing from our own is often adopted. It will probably be the same in Australia as the science of ophiology advances and as native naturalists increase. Says Krefft, in allusion to these commingling features and many synonyms: ‘It is difficult for even the scholar to master the vexatious question of snake classification.’ Add to the scientific names an equal number of vernacular ones, and we encounter a list sufficient to dismay the merely lukewarm student at the very outset.