56 BARBOUR: ZOOGEOGRAPHY. 



relationships in mind, so that there remains Httle to be added to what he has 

 already said. His first paper appeared in "Nova Guinea: Resultats de I'cx- 

 pedition scientifique Neerlandaise a la Nouvelle Guinee " (1906, p. 163-180, 1 

 pi.), and gave a list of all the amphibians from New Guinea known up to that 

 time. In the following year he published his excellent ' ' Amphibien des Indischen 

 Archipels," with tables of distribution for each form (Max Weber's Zool. ergel). 

 einer reise in Niederland. Ost-Indien; 4, 2, 1907, p. 383-416, 1 taf.). These 

 revised again our knowledge of the distribution of the various forms, so that they 

 might be referred to with the greatest ease; and finally in 1909, again in Nova 

 Guinea (1909, 9, 1, p. 31-49, 1 pi.), he has described the booty of several Dutch 

 expeditions to southern New Guinea, including some remarkable new forms, 

 among them a single cystignathoid (Phanerotis novae-guineae van Kampen) 

 from Merauke, the only one known upon the island. The revised list increases 

 the number of species recorded considerably; now, counting Hyla ouwensi 

 Barbour (Bull. M. C. Z., 1908, 51, p. 325), and the new genus and species, 

 Pomatops mlvifera Barbour (Proc. Biol. soc. Wash., 1910, 23, p. 89-90, pi. 1), 

 the number is finally raised to sixty-five species, of which, as van Kampen has 

 shown, an astonishing proportion are confined to Papua. 



It seems hardly worth while to note further the conditions amongst these 

 amphibians, since van Kampen has explained them so clearly. Suffice it to 

 say that Engystomatidae alone constitute nearly fifty per cent of the entire 

 fauna; that eighty-five per cent of all the species are peculiar to the island; 

 and that the species which do occur off the island are with few exceptions found 

 only near by upon Australia, in the Bismarck Archipelago, on the Aru, Ke, and 

 Timor-Laut groups, etc. Chaperinafusca Mocq. is said to occur also on Borneo, 

 which may be possible if we consider the type a specially archaic one; while 

 on the other hand, Rana novae-britanniae Wern. has been reported from Sumatra. 

 This of course is improbable; and possibly emphasizes the fact that species fre- 

 quently look so much alike that it is impossible for lis to separate them, when in 

 reality we know from the physical circumstances of their occurrence that they 

 can not be the same. Such a distribution for a Rana is absolutely impossible; 

 and it would be interesting to know the breeding habits, notes, and other details 

 regarding the life histories of both species, so that if they are as identical in 

 appearance as we are told, they might be separated nominally, as they should be. 



