Pseudacris nigrita 203 



LeConte (1855, p. 627) writes "This species has been placed by Dr. Hol- 

 brook in the genus Cijstignathus, to which it cannot possibly be referred, as it 

 has the vocal vesicle under the chin and not at the corners of the mouth. M. 

 Dumeril has called it an Acris. That genus has the toes properly and strongly 

 webbed." 



In 1858 Gunther (p. 97) places it in Fitzinger's genus Pseudacris. Four 

 years before Baird (1854, p. 60) established Helocaetes for H. feriarum, H. 

 triseriatus and H. darkii, and Chorophilus for C. nigritus. Chorophilus he 

 held was "Distinguished from Acris by expansion of apophyses; from Litoria 

 by the emarginate tongue, less membrane of toes, and more posterior palatine 

 teeth ; from Hylodes in having a membrane at base of toes, etc." Helocaetes was 

 different "from Chorophilus in more anterior position of vomerine teeth, etc." 



From 1882 (Boulenger) onward until 19 17 (the first edition of the Check 

 List of Stejneger and Barbour) Chorophilus has remained. Until 1892 C. 

 triseriatus, C. feriarum, C. nigritus traveled as separate species but at that 

 date O. P Hay put them all under C. nigritus as subspecies and Miss Dicker- 

 son followed his treatment. The authors of the Check List, through they 

 separate them, were not satisfied with the status of the species or forms of 

 Pseudacris nor is any one today. P. ocularis is distinct. P. ornata is dis- 

 tinct. Is P. occidentalis a good form, or near if not P. ornata'^. Are P. 

 nigrita, P. triseriata, P. feriarum and P. septentrionalis all one? We have 

 worked out one life history in Southern Texas, one in Pennsylvania and one in, 

 New York. About two more life histories ought to give enough ammunition 

 to determine this question. We have hastily glanced over the U. S. National 

 Museum Pseudaais material but more fresh material is needed. 



In 1889 Cope said he described another form C. verrucosus from Florida. 

 Possibly it is a good separable from but Pseudacris in Florida and Texas tend 

 to become more warty, as do often Acris. Cope held C. nigritus to have 

 longer hind legs, tubercular upper surface peculiar and swollen gular region 

 wanting in Northern frog, i.e., C. feriarum. 



In 1923 Noble on the basis of a "huge series" (336 specimens) of P. 

 ocularis collected by Mr. J. A. Weber, some P. occidentalis and comparative 

 P. septentrionalis material concluded that Pseudacris has no characters 

 distinguishing it from Hyla and it must be referred to Hyla. He may be 

 right but we are still following Stejneger and Barbour's Check List (1923) in 

 retaining Pseudacris until it is carefully and thoroughly worked out. For 

 example, we have lived with P. ocularis in 1914, 1921, 1922, 1928. It is a 

 distinct species. We lived with P. ornata in 1925. It is a distinct form from 

 the P. triseriata, P. nigrita, P. feriarum, P. septentrionalis group. Life 

 history notes of this complex have been published by Hay, Morgan and others. 

 We have worked them out in Texas and two different places in New York and 

 collected tadpoles from New York to Texas. This complex is the crux of the 

 question, not P. ocularis. Until the puzzling forms are worked out (P 

 triseriata, P. feriarum, P. septentrionalis, and P. nigrita, P. verricosus) are 

 carefully studied in situ and in laboratory it is better to keep the genus 

 Pseudacris. Subsequent investigations may prove realignment desirable. 



