Linnæus called all serpents with these two rows of sub-caudal scales, _Colubers_, including under this name many both large and small, land and water, poisonous and harmless snakes. In respect for the great talent and vast work accomplished by this eminent naturalist, as well as his then paramount and diffusive knowledge, his systems prevailed for a very long while. Cuvier, after Linnæus, became also a great authority for a time. He recognised distinctions in the fangs of venomous snakes, and would reform some previous errors regarding scales. ‘_Boa_ comprenaient autrefois tous les serpens venimeux ou non, dont le dessous du corps et de la queue est garni de bandes d’une seul pièce.’[5] It was equally unsuitable to mingle those with the double rows, as it put a viper and a coluber together. Cuvier also made closer distinctions between the lizard-like snakes and the true Ophidia, ‘_serpens proprement dit_.’ The words _herpetology_ (from the Greek), and _serpents_ (from the Latin _serpo_), formerly embraced a much larger variety; the former may include _all_ reptiles, while the more recently adopted one of _ophiology_ comprises snakes only. And the history of the word tells of the history of the distinctions gradually adopted as above described, as the true snakes or serpents, without external limbs, were separated from the rest. The various names for a snake—Anguis, Serpens, Coluber, etc.—having been made generic distinctions by some of the older naturalists, cause considerable puzzle to the student, who finds these words applied alike to many varying species in as many books, because a writer has often taken one author for his guide, instead of comparing a number. Many modern writers on ophiology give us a list of synonymes, which in time are found to unravel the above perplexities, but which are at first more puzzling than not, because a single snake is presented to you under so many different names. This will be apparent in the course of this work, wherein much that is merely suggestive in the present chapter will be treated more fully under various headings, without, I trust, offering a too wearisome repetition. Indeed, the whole study of the Ophidia presents so many exceptions that recapitulations may be acceptable rather than otherwise. An interlacing of subjects has not here been avoided so much as contrived, in the hope of presenting the whole more clearly to the mind of the student. Ruskin favoured his audience with printed lists of the ‘names of the snake tribe in the great languages.’ And these I gladly reproduce for the benefit of my readers. ‘NAMES OF THE SNAKE TRIBE IN THE GREAT LANGUAGES.’ 1. Ophis (Greek), ‘the seeing’ (creature, understood). Meaning especially one that sees all round it. 2. Dracon (Greek), Drachen (German), ‘the beholding.’ Meaning one that looks well into a thing, or person. 3. Anguis (Latin), ‘the strangling.’ 4. Serpens (Latin), ‘the winding.’