L. GABR. A>'PERSSON. BATRACHIANS FROM CAMEROOX. 19 



specimens, but in a fourth specimen. evidently belonging to 

 the variety notata of H. rujus, the same state of things ap- 

 pears. Werner himself also speaks of such an example of 

 the same variety, wherefore this character cannot be counted 

 as a structural one. 



Another character, iipon whicli Werner lavs a great 

 stress, shoiild be a different arrangement of the vomerine 

 teeth in the two forms. H. ruins and H. bre vi rostris. but such 

 a case does not exist. The groups of vomerine teeth in H. 

 nifu-s varv considerably both in shape and arrangement (eu- 

 riously enough, Wrexer says they do not do so), wherefore 

 in some rufus-specimens these teeth are arranged in quite a 

 similar manner, stated by Werner as typical for his new spe- 

 cies. Moreover. according to him, the head should be broader in 

 H. brevirostris : as appears by the table. this is. however. the 

 case only to some extent. since only one example has a broa- 

 der head than any rufus-specimen: why. one has even the 

 next narrowest head among all measured. As for the diffe- 

 rences of colour. in these brevirostris-specimens it completely 

 agrees with that one described by Werner, but such a colour 

 we find in the tvpical rufus-specimens as well. and what a 

 stress can we lav on this character so variable in all frogs 

 and especially in this genus? 



As seen below. my measurements do not give any spe- 

 cifical differences either. H. breinrostris, howexer, seems tc^ 

 have shorter hind limbs and longer före limbs than H. nifus, 

 but the individual variations are so great that the forms com- 

 pletely merge iiito each other. 



There is a difference. however. a t least as for these spe- 

 cimens. the small style, which projects from the point oi 

 the mandible. being much longer in the brevirostris-specimens 

 than in the others. which difference clearly depends upon 

 the higher nose of the former. But even if this should prove 

 to be constant. the differences between the two forms are in 

 my thought c^f too small a value as specifical ones, wherefore 

 I consider it best to range the form brevirostris as a variety 

 of the highly variable H. rujus. 



Of the other eight rufus-specimens, seven seem to belong 

 to the variety notata. while the eight has another colour, be- 

 side which. as appears from the table. it is separated from 

 the seven bv a broader head and considerablv longer hind 



