16, 8 Taylor: Philippine Amphibia 807 
Measurements of Philautus montanus sp. nov. 
mm. 
Length, snout to vent 39 
Length of head 15 
Width of head 13.9 
Length of snout i. 
Diameter of eye 5.9 
Diameter of tympanum 3.2 
Depth of snout, in front of eye ‘ 5 
Diameter of finger disk 2.5 
Foreleg 26 
Hind leg 65 
Longest finger 11 
Femur 22 
Tibia 22 
Longest toe 15 
Remarks.—Only a single specimen was taken. It was found 
in a small pool of water, near the top of Bongao Peak, on the 
small island of the same name. No other specimen was seen. 
This species appears to be most closely related to Philautus vit- 
tiger Boulenger, from Java, and the differences are not great 
when compared with Boulenger’s description. P. montanus is 
probably a larger species, and the markings are entirely different. 
Genus CORNUFER Tschudi 
Cornufer TscHupI, Class. Batr. (1838) 28; Duméri and Brsron, Erp. 
Gén. 8 (1841) 616; GiinTHER, Cat. Batr. Sal. Brit. Mus. (1858) 
84; Cope, Nat. Hist. Rev. (1865) 115; BouLENGER, Cat. Batr. Sal. 
Brit. Mus. ed. 2 (1882) 107; Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. IX 1 (1918) 
eves 
Hylodes Dumfrin, Ann. Soc. Nat. 19 (1853) 177. 
Halophila Gtrarp, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 6 (1853) 423. 
Platymantis GintTHER, Cat. Batr. Sal. Brit. Mus. (1858) 93; Bov- 
LENGER, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. IX 1 (1918) 373.” 
* Boulenger has recognized Giinther’s genus Platymantis as a genus 
distinct from Cornufer Tschudi. In the latter genus he includes for the 
most part large-disked forms. He includes the four Philippine forms C. 
guentheri, C. jagori, C. worcesteri, and C. corrugatus, the latter probably 
through error since he also includes this species with Platymantis, together 
with P. meyeri. I have been unable to examine a specimen of C. jagori, 
but it is described as having small but distinct disks, probably similar 
to those of C, corrugatus. The new species described in this work, C. 
laticeps, would also be referred to this group. 
With my present study of the group I do not regard the separation of 
these gToups as warranted, and doubt greatly that the character of the disks 
alone is more of a generic character than are vomerine teeth, the char- 
acter of the nostril, or the webbing of the feet. The character of the disks 
’ppears to be the only difference between the two genera. 
