250 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 288 



Variation. — All the specimens we have seen have dark blotches on 

 the back, but no two have exactly the same pattern. In every individ- 

 ual there is a dark interocular bar, and the postocular region around 

 the tympanum is dark; otherwise, the dorsal pattern is quite variable. 

 The specimens range from such extremes as USNM 152090, which has 

 scattered, small, brown blotches on the back, to USNM 152091, in 

 which there is a solid, median, dorsal dark blotch from between the 

 eyes to above the sacral hump, which leaves the areas lateral to the 

 dorsal dark blotch paler and thus reminiscent of dorsolateral stripes. 

 The amount of the ventral markings is quite variable. In some indi- 

 viduals there are distinct dark spots along the lower margins of the 

 jaws, the throat region, and anterior chest region. In others the ventral 

 neckings are reduced, particularly posteriorly, but in nearly every 

 individual some degree of ventral necking is discernible. The dorsal 

 surface of each thigh and shank is crossed with about three rather 

 distinct and rather broad dark bands, these being much more distinct 

 on the shank than on the thigh, but nonetheless the thigh is heavily 

 colored rather than clear. In every specimen there is a distinct white 

 blotch on the upper lip below the eye. 



The dorsal body surface in most individuals is thickly covered with 

 tiny, rounded, wart-like structures, making the dorsal surface very 

 granular, reminiscent of the condition seen in some specimens of 

 Osteocephalus. 



Our three largest specimens are 36.5, 38.5, and 40.3 millimeters in 

 head-body length. 



Remarks. — The specimen described above has been directly com- 

 pared with the type of palpebrogranulata in the Zoological Institute 

 of the University of Stockholm. Although the described specimen is 

 a little larger and a little darker than the type, these differences seem 

 to be due to age and preservation, and it seems to us that there can 

 be no doubt that the two specimens are conspecific. They have the 

 same general build, the same granulated skin on the dorsum, the same 

 vomerine tooth pattern, and essentially the same amount of webbing 

 between the fingers and toes. The patterns of the two specimens are 

 not identical but there is no more difference between them than there 

 is between any of those in a series of six specimens (USNM 152092-7) 

 taken at the same time and same place, in Medina, Cundinamarca. 



We have also examined the type of Hyla mimetica Melin, from 

 Peru, which is now preserved in the Zoological Museum of Uppsala, 

 and we believe it represents the same species. Both that type and 

 USNM 152091 seem to have the dorsum smooth rather than coarsely 

 granulated as in palpebrogranulata, but we can see no other struc- 

 tural difference between palpebrogranulata and mimetica. Both types 



