THE TAIL OF A SNAKE.

SETTING aside for the present the true death-dealing powers of the ophidians, viz. the fangs of the poisonous families and the constricting powers of the larger non-venomous kinds, another supposed medium of mischief, second only to the tongue, is the tail!

The old-time fables of the ‘stinging tails’ have always obtained credence, and do so still among the ignorant classes in many countries. Nor is the belief without some apparent reason, for the tail of a large number of snakes, both of the poisonous and the non-poisonous families, terminates in a horny spine more or less hard and pointed. In a few, this sharp spine is curved with an undeniably weapon-like aspect. Some of these thorn-like tips might even be capable of inflicting a slight wound were the owners conscious of this, and had they a disposition to avail themselves of it. But, as a weapon, snakes do not instinctively use their pointed tails; they are chiefly assistants in locomotion. As a fulcrum, and sometimes a propeller, certain species make constant and important use of them. You may observe that when in a position of danger, many snakes trust greatly to the pressure of their tails, whether pointed or not, as a balance or even a support. This pressure, which is forcible, but not aggressive, no doubt gave rise in the first instance to the belief that the snake was intentionally endeavouring to inflict a wound—a myth which, like all the other ophidian myths, is so hard to eradicate.

Sir Thomas Browne, in his Pseudoxia, more than two hundred years ago, mentioned this as one of the ‘Vulgar Errours.’ As very little was known of foreign snakes at that time, 1672, excepting through classic writers, one must suppose that our poor little native Anguis fragilis was included among the weapon-tailed snakes, ‘that worm with venomed tongue’ which does really in a remarkable manner make important though innocent use of its very blunt tail as a means of progression. He says, ‘That Snakes and Vipers do sting, or transmit their Mischief by the Tail, is a common Expression, not easy to be justified.... The Poison lying about their Teeth and communicated by Bite in such as are destructive. And Bitings mentioned in Scripture are differentially set down from such as Mischief by Stings.’[50] ‘God commanded Moses to take up the Serpent by the Tail,’ Sir Thomas Browne reminds us, as if in proof that the caudal extremity was perfectly harmless. ‘Nor are all Snakes of such empoisoning Qualities as common Opinion presumeth,’ the author endeavours to impress upon his readers, because there are several histories of domestic snakes from ‘Ophiophagous Nations and such as feed on Serpents.’ Then follows an opinion equally wise and witty. ‘Surely the destructive Delusion of Satan in this Shape hath much enlarged the Opinion of their Mischief. Which was not so high with the Heathens, in whom the Devil had wrought a better Opinion of this Animal, it being sacred unto the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, and the common symbol of Sanity.’

But, alas! many spiny-tailed snakes have sprung to light in various countries, long since Sir Thomas Browne so wisely instructed his readers; and even now, the ‘death adder of Australia (Acanthophis antarctica) is much dreaded on account of its thorn-like tail.’ Krefft’s[51] description of the repulsive aspect of this snake is sufficiently terrifying, apart altogether from its looks alone, its ragged-looking head, with its loose scales, thick body, and its short, rough, unmistakeable tail, terminating in a suspicious-looking point, as if one sharp spine had taken root there, and was capable of inflicting a wound. The tail spine hardens only in age, he tells us, and ‘is really not a weapon either of attack or defence.’

Another tail of evil repute belongs to the Water Viper of the United States, vernacularly known as the ‘Thorn-tail’ snake, Trigonocephalus piscivorus of American herpetologists.

John Lawson, in his History of Carolina, published in 1707, was one of the first to describe it. After him we hear of it from Catesby. The quaint descriptions of each of these early travellers are amusing; and from such accounts the progress of science is traced.

‘Of the Horn Snake,’ says Lawson, ‘I never saw but two that I remember. They are like the Rattlesnake in Colour, but rather lighter. They hiss exactly like a Goose when anything approaches them. They strike at their Enemy with their Tail, and kill whatsoever they wound with it, which is armed at the End with a Horny Substance like a Cock’s Spur. This is their Weapon. I have heard it credibly reported by those who said they were Eye-Witnesses, that a small Locust Tree, about the Thickness of a Man’s Arm, being struck by one of these Snakes at Ten o’clock in the Morning, then verdant and flourishing, at Four in the Afternoon was dead, and the Leaves dead and withered.’ (Probably the tree had been struck by lightning during the interval, a very frequent occurrence in those parts.) ‘Doubtless, be it how it will, they are very venomous. I think the Indians do not pretend to cure their wound.’

When Lawson travelled, setting out in December 1700, as an appointed ‘Surveyor-General’ of the newly settled colony of North Carolina, very little was known of the natural history and productions of those parts, and he relied on the native tribes for much of his information.

His work was dedicated ‘To His Excellency, William Lord Craven, Palatine; The Most Noble Henry, Duke of Beaufort; The Right Hon. John Lord Carteret; and the rest of the True and Absolute Lords, Proprietors of the Province of Carolina in America.’

‘As a Debt of Gratitude the Sheets were laid at their Lordships’ Feet, having nothing to recommend them but Truth, a Gift which every Author may be Master of if he will.’

With ever so praiseworthy an intention of telling ‘the Truth,’ Lawson did not possess the scientific knowledge to enable him to guard against error. Neither did Colonel Beverley, who wrote a History of Virginia, published in London in 1722, and who perpetuated the ‘stinging tail.’ ‘There is likewise a Horn Snake, so called from a Sharp Horn it carries in its Tail, with which it assaults anything that offends it, with that Force that, as it is said, it will strike its Tail into the Butt End of a Musket, from whence it is not able to disengage itself.’

A few years later, Catesby went over the same ground as a professed naturalist, and afforded a more rational account of this ‘horn snake,’ to which he assigned the name of Vipera aquatica, ‘Water viper,’ or ‘Water rattlesnake.’ ‘Not that it hath a Rattle. The Tail of this Viper is small towards the End, and terminates in a blunt, horny Point, about half an Inch long. This harmless little Thing has given a dreadful Character to its Owner, imposing a Belief on the Credulous that he is the terrible Horn Snake armed with Death at both Ends, thus attributing to him another Instrument of Death besides that he had before, though in reality of equal Truth with that of the Two-headed AmphisbÆna. Yet we are told that this fatal Horn, by a Jerk of the Tail, not only mortally wounds Men and other Animals but if by Chance struck into a young Tree, whose Bark is more easily penetrated than an old one, the Tree instantly withers, and turns black and dies.’[52]

Unfortunately, in mentioning the ‘Horn snake,’ many subsequent writers, seizing on the marvellous rather than the rational, have omitted the qualifying ‘it is said to inflict a wound,’ and Catesby’s exposition of the absurdity; thus handing down as a fact that the tail was truly a terrible weapon!

It was probably this water viper which Chateaubriand had in his mind when, towards the end of that century, he described the ‘Prickly snake, short and thick. It has a sting in its tail, the wound of which is mortal!’ Chateaubriand was much quoted for a long period.

Dr. J. E. Holbrooke, in his North American Herpetology, published at New York in 1842, corroborates all Catesby further said regarding the fish-loving tastes of the ‘Thorn-tail’ snake, and which obtained for it the specific name piscivorus. It frequents damp and swampy places, and is never seen far from water. In the summer (during Catesby’s time), great numbers might be seen lying on the low boughs of trees overhanging a river, whence they would drop into the water and pursue the fish with great swiftness. Few fish exceed its velocity in swimming. Cenchris or Trigonocephalus piscivorus is the name by which American herpetologists now recognise it. It is becoming rare where formerly it abounded, but is still found in the wilder districts of the less settled States, and in the hot weather may be seen lying motionless on the low branches, and often so like a portion of the bough as not to be observed till the sudden plunge tells that a deadly snake was close at hand. It is a cannibal besides, and other snakes are afraid of it and give it a wide berth. The horny spine (which is a mere hardening and consolidation of the terminal scales) and another feature, namely the ‘pit’ in its cheeks, described in chap. xxi., prove it to be allied to the rattlesnake. It is therefore included among the CrotalidÆ, of which more hereafter.[53]

A number of the ‘Pit vipers’ and Trigonocephali are furnished with hard-pointed tails, and when they vibrate them rapidly, as many snakes do under excitement, the rustling against the dead leaves produces a sound very similar to the sibilation of the true Crotalus tail.

Trigonocephalus contortrix, the ‘Copper-head,’ is another of these. Also the renowned ‘Bushmaster’ of Guiana and Brazil (Lachesis mutus, or Crotalus mutus), of which latter Darwin wrote, confirming Cuvier’s reasons for making it a sub-genus of the rattlesnake:—‘I observed a fact which appears to me very curious, as showing how every character, even though it may be independent of structure, has a tendency to vary by slow degrees. The extremity of the tail of this snake is terminated by a horny point, which is slightly enlarged, and as the animal glides along, it constantly vibrates the last inch or so; and this part, striking against the dry grass and brushwood, produces a rattling noise which can be distinctly heard at the distance of six feet. As often as the animal was irritated or surprised, its tail was shaken, and its vibrations were extremely rapid. This Trigonocephalus has, therefore, in some respects the structure of a viper with the habits of a rattlesnake.’

Dr. GÜnther and Sir Joseph Fayrer both mention a peculiarity of this kind in some of the Eastern representatives of the Crotalus, viz. the Trimeresuri, Indian tree snakes. The former writes: ‘Some have prehensile tails, which, when not so occupied, vibrate rapidly, producing a rustling sound among the leaves.’[54] Others of the family have horny tails.

Dr. Andrew Smith, in his Zoology of South Africa, mentions Vipera caudalis especially, as having a ‘tail distinctly recognised, at the termination of his very thick body, and which is not often seen.’ In the vipers, however, more than others, tails are distinguishable, those of many of them being short as well as suddenly tapering to a point. The deadly Puff adder is called Brachyura on this account, its tail being extremely short for the size of the snake. One exceedingly dangerous kind in St. Lucia is known as the ‘Rat-tailed snake.’ For climbing, and as a propelling power, this slender tail can be of little service. In St. Lucia is also a ‘Rat snake,’ Crebo or Cribo in vernacular (Spilotes variabilis), one of the active non-venomous kinds which, not content with rats and mice for food, wages war on its most venomous fellow-reptiles; as the ‘Racer’ and the ‘King snake’ do against the rattlesnake of the United States. This Crebo is a graceful, elegant creature, and on account of its twofold virtues of mouser and ‘rat-tail’ catcher, is domesticated and petted in some of the islands.[55]

In many of the Colubrine snakes it is almost impossible to distinguish where the ribs cease and the tail begins, except by the anus, so very gradually does the body taper. Nor does there appear to be any certain rule about the length of tails, which in some snakes are even longer than their bodies, and in others not one-tenth the length.

In giving the length of a few snakes (not in feet or inches, but in the number of their vertebrÆ), the reader will obtain a clear idea of this variation in tails. One species of rattlesnake has 194 vertebrÆ, of which 168 support each a pair of ribs, leaving 24 for its tail, or one-eighth. The python has 291 vertebrÆ, of which the 3d to the 251st support a pair of ribs, leaving 40 for its tail, or less than one-seventh of its length.

Let me explain a seeming discrepancy of arithmetic. The spine of the boa constrictor consists of 304 vertebrÆ, of which 2 next the head support no ribs, and 252 support each a pair of ribs. Taking away the first two, which, having no ribs, may be said to form the neck of the snake, that leaves fifty joints for the tail, or about one-sixth of the entire length. Our little sums, therefore, are as follows, in reckoning the vertebrÆ:—

Though in form the ‘neck’ of a snake is often as undistinguishable as the tail—‘une tÊte sans col, et une queue, dont l’origine se confond avec le reste du corps,’ as Dumeril expresses it—there is the one invariable rule belonging to it, namely, that the first two joints of a snake’s spine are ribless, and that the ribs begin at the third. Physiologists tell us a snake has no neck, and for reasons which will be explained in the next chapter; yet, by way of distinction, all speak of ‘the neck’ as an accepted fact.

No invariable rule as to tails can, however, be established, either as regards length, shape, or character. Firstly, the length of the tail varies from inches to feet in snakes of nearly the same size. Secondly, both venomous and harmless ones are occasionally furnished with horny tips, and both vibrate them with equal rapidity. Thirdly, snakes that have long spineless tails also vibrate them rapidly; as do snakes with short spineless tails; so that one cannot say that spines are confined to one genus, any more than is their use or their action. The vibration of the tail is, in fact, only ‘an outlet for suppressed energy,’ as Professor Shaler of the United States has lucidly put it. Excitement displays itself in the tail of a snake as much as in the tail of a dog. This may be observed at the Ophidarium, or wherever an active snake can be watched. In the rattlesnake it is, of course, more conspicuous, and always audible when agitated; but many others similarly display their feelings in their eloquent caudal terminations.

A handsome young python, of about eight feet long, at the Zoological Gardens, has a tail of which the last few inches taper so suddenly that the extreme end of this reptile appears almost ludicrously trivial for so fine a possessor. One inch of this—hardly thicker than a rat’s tail—you may see wriggling so rapidly that you can scarcely follow its movements, or believe that it is a part of the large quiescent body to which it is attached. In pursuit of its prey the python itself glides with slow dignity, while the trifling little terminal inch or so of tail is in a perpetual but most undignified wriggle.

In the ‘Racer,’ already familiar to the reader, the tail is one-fourth the length of the body; in the ‘milk snake’ (Coluber eximius), introduced in chapter iv., it is one-fifth. The extensive variation in tails may be comprehended by their number of vertebrÆ, which in some snakes amount to 200, and in others are reduced to 5.

Of the practical uses of the snake’s tail, the natural uses,—those above mentioned being either imaginary ones, or a mere expression of feeling,—the prehensile power is one of the greatest. ‘Strictly speaking, the true prehensile tail is found only in the boa,’ Schlegel, Owen, and other physiologists tell us; but that statement refers to some peculiar anatomical construction, enabling the tail to twine and grasp with extraordinary force, because nearly all snakes can manage to climb, or to raise themselves when occasion requires it, making use of their tails, as was stated at the commencement of this chapter. ‘Even the clumsy, ugly death adder can climb well,’ Krefft assures us, and that it can support itself against a wall with only a portion of its tail on the ground.

Many writers and observers, in describing this power or force in the snake, have given rise to the idea that snakes can stand on their tails. Erect themselves nearly upright they certainly do, even without extraneous support for a few moments, and with support for a considerable time.

Cobras can do this. A personal friend, Colonel C——, when in India, once heard a sort of muffled sound at his door, which caused him to open it suddenly, when a cobra, which had raised itself three or more feet against it, fell straight into the room. He sprang quickly aside, and ran to fetch a stick, but when he got back the cobra was gone.

But to return to their prehensile powers. Snakes which are not habitual climbers are often found in trees, suspending themselves from or supporting themselves upon the branches, as instanced in the chapter on the egg-eaters. The Hamadryad is also much in trees, as its name implies, and is seen hanging from the branches. This latter, and also the Indian tree snakes, Trimeresuri, are poisonous, and far removed from the boas with the true prehensile tail. Familiar to every one are illustrations of tropical scenery, in which the boa constrictor and the anaconda, hanging from trees, are important features. Dumeril, in general terms, says: ‘Les ophidiens rampent, glissent, s’accrochent, se suspendent, gravissent en s’aidant de la totalitÉ de leur corps, sautent, s’Élancent, bondissent, nagent, et plongent,’[56] in every one of which movements the tail is an important agent. S’accrocher and se suspendre must be mainly by the agency of the tail. Schlegel follows up his statement, ‘tail strictly prehensile found only in boas,’ by explaining, nevertheless, that a short tail is sufficiently vigorous to attach itself to any point, and support the whole body.[57] In the non-venomous tree snakes the tail is long and slender, and no squirrel or bird is more active and at home in a tree than these. They glide, swing, climb, and almost fly from branch to branch, scarcely disturbing a leaf.

Our ‘excellent egg merchant,’ introduced as the Racer, though a ground snake, is equally at home in a tree, and holds on by its tail with remarkable adroitness, but then the Racer or ‘Pilot snake’ is a true boa also. (The true ‘boa’ is distinguished by its dentition and formation of jaw-bones, the term ‘boa,’ so variously and perplexingly used by some of the older naturalists, being now restricted to certain non-venomous species which possess such anatomical structure.)

Lawson’s description of this ‘Racer’ is graphic. ‘The long black Snake frequents the Land altogether, and is the nimblest Creature living. His Bite has no more Venom than a Prick with a Pin. He is the best Mouser that can be; for he leaves not one of that Vermin alive where he comes. He also kills the Rattlesnake wherever he meets him by twisting his Head about the Neck of the Rattlesnake, and whipping him to Death with his Tail. This Whipster, for all his Agility, is so brittle that when he is pursued, and gets his Head into the Hole of a Tree, if anybody gets hold of the other End, he will twist and break himself in the Middle.’

Lawson does not appear to have understood the nature of constrictors. ‘Whipping’ the rattlesnake was probably only the tail lashed in anger, or used in controlling the exceedingly active movements of the captor. As for its ‘breaking itself in halves,’ many exaggerated stories are told by unscientific spectators of the ‘brittleness’ of snakes, the simple explanation being that all are alike irritated and terrified when rendered helpless by their tail being fettered, and may then struggle until they injure themselves. The common blindworm (Anguis fragilis) has been seen to so-call ‘break itself in halves;’ but this will be explained in its place (chap. xxv.).

This sensitiveness—sensibility, one may almost term it—in the tail of snakes has been pointed out by the late Frank Buckland, Dr. Stradling, and others of like practical experience, affording useful information in case of danger. ‘If attacked by a boa constrictor, it is of no use to pull and haul, but catch held of the tip of the tail and unwind him.’ Also, ‘when striking, aim at the tail. The spinal cord there being only thinly covered with bone, it is more easily wounded; and when the spine is broken, the animal is disabled.’[58]

Certain it is, that by the muscular power of the tail snakes perform wonderful feats, not only erecting themselves, and maintaining their balance for a short time, as a long pole is balanced by an acrobat on his chin or his nose; hanging by an inch or so of the tip, as an acrobat hangs for a time on one foot or one finger; raising themselves against a smooth surface, as you see the large pythons at the Gardens do against the smooth sides or glass fronts of their cages, even to the very top, but springing, ‘executing leaps,’ as Roget and others term it. For though the ‘leap’ is not strictly like the action of a frog or a grasshopper, or a man whose two limbs act in concert and together, the result is the same,—the reptile accomplishes a long distance with quickness, decision, and aim. Professor Owen[59] calls it a saltatory motion, ‘the sudden extension of the coils of the body reacting upon the point of earth on which the tail presses, throwing the serpent forward.’ Sometimes, when the creature lies closely coiled, the sudden unbending has the effect of a spiral spring; and occasionally, when the tail is brought suddenly up to the head, and the serpent springs forward again, and continues to do this in pursuit, as has often been witnessed, the effect is that of a rolling hoop, and has given rise to a belief among the ignorant that the reptile really rolls along.

One in America, known as the ‘Hoop snake,’ is reported to ‘roll down hill,’ the idea originating possibly from the optical illusion in consequence of the rapid changes of position—an effect which we see in that amusing toy, the zoetrope.

The ‘black snake’ of Australia, Hoplocephalus pseudechis, is one of the very active venomous kinds, whose motions in pursuit or escape are almost like leaps, and present the appearance of a hoop or circle. Reputed ‘hoop snakes’ are there also. The reptile rapidly extends itself to full length, then brings up its posterior portion in a loop, and so springs forward again, continuing to do this with amazing rapidity.

The most easy and natural convolutions of a snake are lateral. As closely as their body can be coiled on a given space, as close as a ribbon or a rope, they can curl themselves round sideways, that is, with the ventral scales all prone to the ground, and the vertebral column upwards; nor could they, from the construction of their spine, coil themselves similarly in a vertical position, as a hedgehog and a dormouse roll themselves up. But temporarily and partially they can bend themselves vertically; for you see a snake often with a part of its body raised vertically against a wall, while the rest is horizontally along the ground, and consequently one part is at right angles with the other part, and as the creature rises against the wall every joint has in turn taken this position. Also, when coiled round a branch, you do occasionally see that the curves are not invariably and unexceptionally lateral, but sometimes vertical, although not so closely so as in the more natural coils. I have very narrowly observed this, because the ‘hoop’-like motion is often ridiculed; but it seems a not impossible action when a large circle is described by the body, though close coils would be less possible.[60]

A clergyman of Australia had a narrow escape from one of these ‘rolling’ creatures. His daughter gave me an account of the circumstance, she also, when a resident there, having been well acquainted with such scenes. Her father accidentally trod on one of those dangerous serpents, which immediately made a spring at him, but which he expertly eluded, and took to his heels with all speed, knowing the vicious nature of that snake. Looking back, he saw the reptile pursuing him with ‘strides’ or ‘bounds,’ stretching itself to full length, then bringing up its tail and springing forward again with terrific vigour. In its excitement it seemed almost to fly, now gaining on him, and now, as an occasional obstacle had to be avoided, giving his victim some slight advantage. For the space of three whole fields, ‘paddocks,’ he was thus chased, he the while using his utmost speed. His home was in the bush, and when, almost dropping with excessive fatigue and terror, he came within sight of it, one of his farm-servants saw him thus tearing along, and, guessing the cause, seized his gun, and hastened to meet the fugitive, and put an end to the chase.

Du Chaillu’s snakes were almost always ‘springing’ at him, and very probably some of them did so. At the same time, most of his snakes had ‘fangs’ as well; but then, in his ‘Wild Life’ he witnessed many other anomalies.

As a rule, the most active are the non-venomous kinds; yet among the venomous colubrines, the slender elapidÆ, of which the above Australian snake is one, we find much activity.

Mr. P. H. Gosse was struck with the amazing springing power of the yellow Jamaica boa (Chilobothrus inornatus), and by a similar use of its tail as a propelling power.[61] It rears itself up and leaps an incredible distance, he tells us; one covered nearly twenty feet in such a spring, but that was on the incline of a hill. He noticed another suspending itself from a branch, not with its tail curled round, but with a mere tip of it lying longitudinally, pressure alone supporting the reptile. The slightest contact suffices to maintain the hold.

There is still one more offending tail to describe. It belongs to a West Indian relative of our own little ‘blindworm,’ bearing also the family name, and for more justifiable reasons, inasmuch as the eyes of the Jamaica species really are not easily distinguished. It is worm-like in aspect, and of about the same size as Anguis fragilis, similarly smooth and polished, and so active that it is difficult to hold it. Typhlops lumbricalis is its name, the first word signifying blind, and the second worm-like. It moves backwards and forwards with equal facility, and is therefore commonly called the ‘two-headed snake.’ The coloured people are dreadfully afraid of its short blunt tail, which they think can ‘sting,’ and which terminates in a minute horny nipple on a shining round plate or scale. Being a burrowing snake, this hard, protected tail is of great use as a fulcrum; but when off the ground, taken up by the hand, for instance, the little shining worm makes still further use of its tail, as its English cousin does, pressing the tip firmly against the fingers, or whatever surface is near it, to support itself, and to the terror of those who hold it, and who forthwith dash it down, though it is wholly powerless to injure.

In Australia it has some allies, whose tails are remarkably developed into this useful point. The reptiles being as round as rulers and as smooth, the difficulty of progression without this aid as a fulcrum will be evident. Below are three tails, which will suffice to exemplify their purpose and utility.

A curious modification is seen in the centre tail, belonging to Uropeltis philippinus, which, as the name implies, terminates in a round disk or shield. This snake is also one of the smooth cylindrical forms, ‘admirably adapted to burrowing,’ says Dr. GÜnther. Its truncated appearance is as if it were chopped clean in halves.

Another is the Cylindrophis, from its form. Several of the burrowing family are remarkable for a similarity of head and tail, obscure features, inconspicuous eyes, and very small mouth, rendering it difficult on first sight to decide which is the head and which the tail. All being feeble, inoffensive, and entirely harmless, the evil attached to them of having ‘two heads’ is only another proof of the prejudice and animosity displayed towards every creature in the shape of a snake, however innocent. These poor little ‘blindworms,’ admirably organized to dig and burrow and find their food in deep and hidden places, have their uses. In countries where dangerous ants swarm, we might well tremble for the consequences, had not nature anticipated such evils by providing insectivorous reptiles, as well as birds and ant-eaters, to keep them in check.

We must not omit one other of the family of burrowing snakes, which from the very earliest ages has been supposititiously endowed with two heads. Its name, AmphisbÆna, or ‘double-walker’ (going both ways), however, is well merited, because, like Typhlops, it can progress either way, forwards or backwards, with equal facility. This is the one alluded to by Catesby (p. 174). We can comprehend the advantage of the retrogressing power to these otherwise unprotected little reptiles, when they cautiously peep from their narrow burrow in the ground, and espy one of their many enemies in the shape of a much larger ophidian, or a carnivorous bird. Quick as thought, back they glide, and are safe. Living chiefly among the ants, on which they feed, their cuirass of hard, polished, close-set scales protects them from a bite or sting. Another beautiful provision of nature is, that the young ones, on being hatched, find food ready at hand—at mouth, rather—the eggs having been laid, or the young ones born, in the nest of the ants.

Of this harmless and useful reptile, Pliny seriously wrote: ‘The amphisbÆna has two heads; that is, it has a second one at its tail, as though one mouth were too little for the discharge of all its venom!’

Even at the present day this belief in ‘two heads,’ or ‘two tails,’ and ‘death at both ends,’ is not wholly eradicated, and not merely among the lower classes either.

It only remains to say that when two heads have really appeared—and there are several such cases on record—they are simply monstrosities, malformations, as found in other animals occasionally. An example of this kind may be seen at the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. Another was described by Frank Buckland in Land and Water, April 1872. It was sent to him by his friend Dr. Bowerbank of St. Leonard’s.

A curious jumble of the AmphisbÆna and the Cobra, with its elevated and expanded neck, is found in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. iii. p. 863, for 1665. There had been a correspondence on the subject of two heads, and a reader was evidently sceptical, for the writer thus protests that he is telling the truth:—

‘There are indeed such Serpents in these Parts (Java Naja) which have an Head on each End of their Body, called Capra capella. They are esteemed Sacred by these People, and fortunate to those in whose House and Lands they are found; but pernicious to whomsoever doth them Harm.’

This credulous gentleman writes from the East, and cannot corroborate what he has been told by a personal acquaintance with even an AmphisbÆna, which might really deceive a casual observer. But that the belief prevailed extensively prior to this, we find from a distinguished physician of his day, F. Hermandez, or Fernandez, who, in his work, Animalium Mexicanum, 1628, represents a creature that would fill one of these pages, with two heads like a ram with wattles and other ample appendages, and distinguishes it as AmphisbÆna EuropÆa.

‘It is not for us to question the Ancients,’ says the much too modest author, betraying a lurking misgiving as to the reality of the creature, but nevertheless doing his best to represent it as his imagination depicts it. It is here much reduced in size, but may be found on p. 797 of the above very interesting volume.

Sir Thomas Browne includes this among his ‘Vulgar Errours,’ and traces it to Nicander, Galen, and other classic writers, but to ‘Ælian most confidently.’ He discusses the creature with dispassionate intelligence, and shows us that ‘poets have been more reasonable than philosophers’ about it.[62] Again, if such a thing there were, it were not to be obtruded by the name of AmphisbÆna, or as an animal of one denomination, with a duplicity of hearts and heads,’ he argues, giving honour to the head, and therefore that the creature must be dual.

There are frequently some of the smooth, ruler-like snakes in our London Reptilium; their very small eyes and mouth, and blunt, shapeless head, render it difficult to decide at the moment between head and tail. Any with sheep’s heads we are not likely to see, and those that have had the malformation of two reptilian heads generally present something of two necks as well. The writers, however, whom we have quoted were not thinking of monstrosities, but had profound faith in a veritable AmphisbÆna EuropÆa, which an artist with an unscientific imagination has handed down to posterity!