General Discussion 63 



in camp, in the field and with them ahve. One needs to gather much material 

 alive in its own haunt and seek it oneself over a period of time, to appraise 

 affinities and then he may be far amiss. Some of the evidences may be as 

 follows : 



1. Adult characters. Some may think or hold too little attention has 

 been given comparative morphology and structural characters of the adults. 

 Heretofore these have been largely used and are the common presumptive 

 evidence already known and most easily sought with preserved material. 

 Had Holbrook known that A oris gryllus and Hyla crucifer laid single eggs 

 he would have been more confirmed in making them Hylodes gryllus and 

 Hylodes crucifer which he did on adult characters. When one knows Ra7ia 

 virgatipes lays different egg masses from Rana grylio then do the adult re- 

 semblances become so overpowering in assignment of relationship? If we 

 rehed on egg mass, R. virgatipes might be put far removed from R. grylio, yet 

 somewhere near R. grylio it doubtless belongs. 



2. Voice characters of males. On the basis of sacs Bufo quercicus belongs 

 in a different group from Bufo terrestris, B. americanus, or Bufo fowleri, and 

 other characters bear out this judgment. Vocal sacs, however in the Hylidae 

 of Okefinokee are not so useful in separation of racial groups. In the Ranidae 

 the order of vocal sac development seems least in R. clamitans, R. catesheiana, 

 R. heckscheri, R. grylio, R. septentrionalis, and R. palustris. There is a 

 group with prominent lateral sacs, to wit, Rana sphenocephala, R. pipiens, 

 R. virgatipes, R. areolata, and R. aesopus. The first assemblage seems natural, 

 but does R. virgatipes belong in the second group on other grounds? The 

 second assemblage is as natural except for R. virgatipes. From another 

 vocal point of view, R. virgatipes and R. septentrionalis must be close because 

 each independently has been dubbed a Carpenter Frog. 



3. Breeding maturity. On this basis we would put the small Bufo querci- 

 cus apart from Bufo terrestris. In the Hylidae, Acris gryllus, the species of 

 Pseudacris, Hyla squirella and Hyla femoralis would form a small sized 

 group; Hyla andersonii, Hyla versicolor, Hyla cinerea, and intermediate 

 group; and Hyla gratiosa, a large sized group. Or Rana virgatipes, R. sep- 

 tentrionalis, R. sphenocephala, Rana pipiens, and R. clamitans might make one 

 group and Rana areolata, R. aesopus, R. heckscheri, R. catesheiana, and R. 

 grylio another group. Are these groups good criteria of relationship in each 

 case? I fear not. 



4. Breeding season. In the Ranas it would seem as if Rana sphenocephala 

 (also R. pipiens) and Rana aesopus (also R. areolata) fall in the very early 

 group, and Rana virgatipes, R. heckscheri, R. grylio, R. catesheiana, R. clami- 

 tans and R. septentrionalis form a later group. They seem natural groups, 

 but does R. palustris fall intermediate? 



In the Hylidae, Pseudacris nigrita comes very early. Hyla gratiosa and 

 Hyla squirella and Acris gryllus, single egg layers, fall into early spring 

 breeders. Are the two Hylas related? The next group seems Hyla cinerea, 

 Hyla femoralis, Pseudacris ocularis, Hyla versicolor, Hyla andersonii, the 

 first and last possibly related, the second and fourth, but the third apart. 



