Dr. J. E. Gray on Urodele Batrachians, and Trigonophrys. 353 



cannot fail to arrive at this conclusion, that the several distinct 

 ovaries, each formed of a single carpel united by its margins 

 without any inflexion, which margins being on the ventral side 

 and ovuligerous, form there a longitudinal parietal placentation, 

 — characters that belong to the Winter acece, — unquestionably 

 place that family in the class Polt/carpica. On the other hand, 

 we find in the Canellacece similar carpels ; but instead of being 

 distinct, they are united into one compound ovary by the simple 

 junction of their placentiferous margins, thus forming a uni- 

 locular ovarium with compound parietal placentation : this Order 

 must therefore come within the limit of the Rhoeades of End- 

 licher, where we find the carpels similarly constituted. Not- 

 withstanding this separation into diff'erent classes, it is evident, 

 from the extremely close affinity existing between the two fami- 

 lies, that they ought to be in juxtaposition in any linear arrange- 

 ment; but I will again refer to this subject when I come to 

 discuss the affinities of the Winteracea. 



XXXII. — Observations on Dr. HallowelVs Paper on Urodele 

 Batrachians, and Trigonophrys, 8cc., in the ^Journal of the 

 Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia/ By Dr. John 

 Edward Gray, E.R.S., V.P.Z.S., P. Ent. Soc. &c. 



In the third part of the third volume of the n^w series of the 

 ' Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,' 

 for February 1858, Dr. Edward Hallowell has published a paper 

 " on the Caducibranchiate Urodele Batrachians,^' in which he 

 divides these animals into nine subfamilies. 



The paper, which is very valuable as regards the accounts of 

 the North American species of the Order, and of the European 

 specimens in the Bonaparte Collection, which has come into the 

 possession of the Academy, is not preceded by any observations, 

 so that its object and intention are not explained. It does not 

 give any account of what has been done on the subject by his 

 predecessors in the same field. Perhaps the author thinks that 

 the less he says on this head the better; or perhaps he may 

 boldly say, like another naturalist on a similar occasion, ^' I 

 have had no predecessors.'' 



The paper at once commences with the characters of the nine 

 subfamilies ; and, as they have no reference to any other authors 

 except in one case, I take it for granted we are to suppose that 

 they are the families suggested and characterized by the author. 

 The exception to which I have above referred is thus marked : — 

 " ElHpsiglossidse, D. ^ B. = Molgida3, Merrem" Now, it is to 

 be observed, that neither of the authors so referred to have 



Ann. ^ Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 3. Vol i. 23 



