t: 



er 



L. G. ANDERSSON, A NEW LEPTODACTYLUS, A NEW NOTOTREMA. 5 



structure of the poucli in this specimen where certainly no 

 exteriör opening exists on tlie large interiör room. 



I). F. Weinland, the first one who has described the 

 pouch, seems to me to be right regarding its origin. He 

 considers it to be a dermal invagination, whereby — I think 

 — the upper leaf of the infolded skin grows together with the 

 external dorsal skin (figure 1 a, b). When the pouch is not in 

 use, the two leaves grow together at the opening, separating 



again from each other at 3 , 



the next laying of eggs. 



In a paper, Die Brut- 

 pjlege der schwaiizlosen Ba- 

 trachier in Abhandl. Naturf . t 

 Gesellsoh. Halle Bd 22, 

 1901, Messrs. Brändes and 

 Schoenichen are of quite 

 another thought regarding c 

 the origin and metamor- 

 phosis of the pouch. They 

 ground their meaning on 



the state of things in No- 



toirema pygmceum Boett- Q 



GER, but Seem to beheve Figiire 1. The inner dorsal pouch by 

 that a similar Case exists Nototrema (schematic figures). a and h 



show different stages of the supposed de- 

 in other forms as WelL Ae- velopment of the pouch; c the pouch not 



cording to them the pouch "^ "«^' ^ ^^^ P^"^^ ^^^^^ ^°^ ^'^''^ 

 should be formed in such 



a way that a belt of thin skin arises on the median part of 

 the back, gradually extending towards the sides, while at 

 the same time the dorsal skin rises itself in two longitudinal 

 lateral folds, gradually growing towards the middle where 

 they melt together, leaving a small opening farthest back. 

 In N. "pyqmceum this suture should open again along its 

 whole length, when the young-ones are ready to leave their 

 nursery, whereupon the pouch completely disappears, being 

 quite new-formed at the next breeding season. 



This specimen shows that no resorbtion of the inner 

 pouch has occurred, neither can it be any break in the me- 

 dian line at least in the Nototrema-iovm^ in general, in which 

 nothing speaks of such an origin and metamorphosis as 

 Brändes and Schoenichen suppose. I also find that Ga- 



