2 26 Frogs of the Okefinokee Swamp 



In tadpole coloration Pseudacris ocularis has the brown lateral band of the 

 other Pseudacris species. In tadpole pattern it is nearer Hyla crucifer than 

 Acris gryllus. In labial teeth it has a formula 2/3 not 2/2 as in Acris gryllus 

 regularly and sometimes in Hyla crucifer. The latter however is also 2/3 and 

 some Pseudacris tadpoles (other species) may have 2/2. 



In adult coloration it approaches more nearly in some individuals (five 

 stripes) the Pseudacris type rather than that of Hyla crucifer or Acris gryllus 

 but unlike most individuals of Pseudacris species it is usually self color on the 

 back. The author has seen in the field many fine Pseudacris from New York 

 to Brownsville, Texas, and this species in many ways seems the most distinct 

 species of the group unless it be Pseudacris ornata. Each has been poorly 

 understood. Pseudacris ocularis proves a common form wherever found. 

 So, too, Pseudacris ornata doubtless will prove not so rare. Had the average 

 person lived and played with this species from 1912-1922, as some of us have, 

 he might conclude Pseudacris ocularis the most distinct and possible aberrant 

 ■species of the group both in diminutive size, in self color (others sometimes 

 are though not always so), in singly-laid eggs and other impressions one gets 

 from the species. With only Pseudacris ocularis and Pseudacris ornata at 

 hand one would question whether to put them together if he had not been 

 schooled in the history of the group. Furthermore, though the present author 

 has worked out the life history of three or four species of Pseudacris in twenty 

 years he dare positively assert that "The species of Pseudacris must be referred 

 to Hyla. . . ." In the same paper we have "Future work may show that P. 

 septentrionalis, P. triseriata and P. feriarum are closely allied and possess 

 characters in common, distinguishing them from the more Hyla-like species 

 of the genus." Stejneger and Barbour in adopting their course in retaining 

 Pseudacris until this central core of Pseudacris are carefully worked out — life 

 histories, field impressions, anatomy and all — take the more conservative 

 course. All the collections in the U. S. A. will not clear it up like actual field 

 experience with each form. I would not be surprised, however, if some, if not 

 all of Pseudacris might be eventually referred to Hyla as Noble suggests, but 

 why hurriedly consign them all on the detailed study of one possible outlying 

 species. Nevertheless Pseudacris ocularis is as near Hyla crucifer as any hylid. 

 It is Sabalian in distribution and Hyla crucifer more northern in general. Or 

 it may be a good Pseudacris coincidental within the range of other Pseudacris. 

 Apparently Pseiidacris is largely an upper Austral group (except possibly for 

 P. septentrionalis). 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



1882 Boiilenger, G. A. Catalogue of Batrachia Salientia S. Ecaudata in . . . B. M. 2nd 



edit. London 1882, pp. 333, 334. 



1926 Brimlev, C. S. .Journal Elisha Mitchell Soc, Vol. 41, Nos. 3 & 4, Apr. 26, p. 82. 



1875 Cope, E. D. Check List— List Batr. & Rept. N. Am., 1875, p. 30. 



1Q13 Deckert, R. F. Copeia, Feb. 14, 1914, No. 3, p. 3. 



1915 . Copeia, July 27, 1915, No. 20, p. 23. 



1921 . Copeia, Mar. 15, 1921, No. 92. p. 22. 



1922 . Copeia Nov. 20, 1922, No. 112, p. 88. 



1906 Dickerson, M. C. The Frog Book p. 162. 



1838-42. Holbrook, J. E. North American Herpetology, ist ed. II, 79, pi. XIV, 1838; 

 2nd ed. IV, pi. 33, 1842. 



