96 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol.38. 



Originally described from the province of Fokien, China, this frog 

 has been found in Formosa since the publication of the Herpetology 

 of Japan, and recorded almost simultaneously by Boulenger and Van 

 1 >enburgh. 



RANA NAMIYEI Stejneger. 



Eerpel Japan, 1907, p. 36. i 



L901. Rana namiyei Stejneger, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, vol. 14, Dec. 12, 



L901,p. L90. Denbi rgh, Proc. California A.cad. Sci. (4), vol. 3, Dec.20, 



L909, |>. 55 I Kanshirei and Polisia, Formosa). 



L909. Rana kvJilii Boi lenger, Aim. Mag. Nat. Hist. (8), vol. 4, Dec. 1, 1909, 



p. 495 (Fuhosho, Kanshirei, and AAikang, Formosa), (not of Dumeril 



and BibroD '.' i. 



Originally described by me from Okinawashima, Riu Kiu. The 

 Formosan specimens are recorded by Boulenger as Rana Tcuhlii and 

 by Van Denburgh as R. namiyei, the former expressing the belief that 

 they should be united. Direct comparison between authentic speci- 

 mens from Kiu Kiu and from Formosa is required to decide which of 

 the two forms occurs in the latter island. 



RANA TIGERINA Daudin. 



Herpet. Japan, L907, p. L39.) 

 Apparent I v common in Formosa. 



RANA SAUTERI Boulenger. 



L909. Rana sauteri Boulenger, Ann. Mag. Nat. Bist. (8), vol. 1, Dec. I, 1909 

 p. 193 (type-locality, Kanshirei villa-'', J. unit feel all., Formosa; types 

 in Brit. Mas.; II. Sauter, collector). 



This addition to the Formosan fauna is said to he related to Rana 

 mortenseni, from Burma and Siam. 



RANA ADENOPLEURA Boulenger. 



L909. /.''//"/ </'// nopU um Boi i i mger, Ann. Mag. Nat. II i-i . (8), vol. 1, Dec. 1 . 1909, 

 p. 192 (type-locality, Fuhacho village, 1,000 Eeel alt., Formosa; types 

 in I'.rit . Mus.; II. Sauter, collector). 



Another novelty, stated to agree very closely with Rana j>hur<i<ltn, 

 from Yunnan. 



RANA TAIPEHENSIS Denburgh. 



L909. Rana laipehensis Denburgh, Proc. California Acad. Sci. ( I), Dec. 20, 1909, 

 p. 56 (type-locality, Taipeh, Formosa; type, California Acad. Sci. No. 

 Mm, 



This is possibly the same as the foregoing species, though a com- 

 parison of the original descriptions shows several discrepancies. 



Thus in /,'. ,/,/, ,i U j<l, ura the vomerine teeth are described as "be- 

 tween ih,> choana?," in /.'. taipehensis as "between and extending 

 behind the ehoanse;" first finger as "extending slightly beyond 



