Hyla femoralis 293 



and of one pilot snake {Elaphe o. confinis). In other words, two distinctly 

 terrestrial species ate it, one aquatic species and one more or less arboreal form. 

 The last, the pilot snake may have captured it in the piney trees, but all the 

 rest doubtless took it on its journey to the breeding pools or while in them, 

 or this species may be more terrestrial in other months and not exclusively 

 arboreal as previously held. This tree frog may be more frequent in the 

 reptilian diet of the swamp because it is more common than its relative, the 

 Carohna tree frog (Hyla cinerea)." On July 2, 1922, we saw at night a small 

 garter with an adult Hyla femoralis in its mouth. The snake had it head first. 

 On June 27, 1922, in one pond where we captured the Hyla gratiosa tad- 

 pole with bifurcated tail and Hyla squirella tadpole with one hind leg we found 

 a Hyla feinoralis tadpole with only one hind leg. Another Hyla femoralis tad- 

 pole had the forelegs about to burst out and no hind legs at all. Was it ab- 

 normal, pathological or were they snapped off by turtles (Deirochelys reticu- 

 laria) or snakes which we captured in this pond? 



AUTUMNAL DISAPPEARANCE 



The latest records we have are for mid-September, 1922, and August 22, 

 192 1. Some would have transformed in October. Doubtless this month or 

 November are the periods of beginning of inactivity. 



AFFINITIES 



Holbrook (1842, Vol. IV, p. 128) alludes to Dumeril & Bibron's mistake 

 as follows: "Dumeril and Bibron consider this animal as identical with the 

 Hyla squirella, from which it is, however, perfectly distinct. 



1. It is about two-thirds the size (as a matter of fact H. femoralis 

 is larger, A. H. W.). 



2. Its general colour and markings are different: there are no white 

 lines along the upper lip, and the yellow spots on the thigh always exist 

 there, and never in the Hyla femoralis. 



3. It differs in habits, for it is never found near outhouses or about 

 fences and in old fields." 



In 185s John LeConte (1855, p. 428) refers to the same matter. "It is 

 wrong in Dumeril & Bibron to say that this species is a variety of Hyla 

 squirella. In shape and size the difference is not considerable. The latter 

 animal during the warm season is always to be met with about the houses, the 

 H. femoralis never. Besides, their notes are entirely different." As late as 

 1882 Dumeril & Bibron's mistake somewhat influences Boulenger (1882, p. 

 398) in his statement "Appears to be specifically distinct from H. squirella.^' 



This species seems in adult appearance to be a small species of the Hyla 

 versicolor, yet is readily distinguishable. The individual eggs look Hke those 

 of this species and the surface films on the water appear to be of the same sort, 

 though Hyla femoralis may lay larger films. Of the tadpoles we have the 

 note (June 27, 1922) that "The tadpoles have the same bright red color in 



