y informed me some
years ago that Mr. Bryan Hook, of Farnham, Surrey (who, my
correspondent assures me, is a thoroughly good naturalist),
had found in Malta a small snake, _Coronella austriaca_, which
is rare in England, but common in many parts of Europe. It is
a constrictor, without poison fangs, which would cling to the
hand or arm as Luke describes. It is similar in size to the
viper, and so like in markings and general appearance that Mr.
Hook, when he caught his specimen, thought he was killing a
viper.

My friend, Prof. J.W.H. Trail, of Aberdeen, whom I consulted,
replied that _Coronella laevis_ or _austriaca_, is known in
Sicily and the adjoining islands; but he can find no evidence
of its existence in Malta. It is known to be rather irritable,
and to fix its small teeth so firmly into the human skin as to
need a little force to pull it off, though the teeth are too
short to do any real injury to the skin. Coronella is at a
glance very much like a viper; and in the flames it would not
be closely examined. While it is not reported as found in
Malta except by Mr. Hook, two species are known there
belonging to the same family and having similar habits
(_leopardinus_ and _zamenis_ (or _coluber_) _gemonensis_). The
coloring of _Coronella leopardinus_ would be the most likely
to suggest a viper.

The observations justify Luke entirely. We have here a snake
so closely resembling a viper as to be taken for one by a good
naturalist until he had caught and examined a specimen. It
clings, and yet it also bites without doing harm. That the
Maltese rustics should mistake this harmless snake for a
venomous one is not strange. Many uneducated people have the
idea that all snakes are poisonous in varying degrees, just as
the vulgar often firmly believe that toads are poisonous.
Every detail as related by Luke is natural, and in accordance
with the facts of the country.

In a word, then, the whole question as to Luke's authority as a writer,
as an eye-witness of many things, and as the relator of many others with
regard to which he had obtained the testimony of eye-witnesses is fully
vindicated. Twenty years ago many scholars were prone to doubt this
whole question. Ten years ago most of them were convinced that the Luke
traditions were not justified by recent i