HEKPETOLOGY OF JAPAN. 143 



Genus POLYPEDATES" Tschudi. 



1838. Rhacophorus Tschudi, Olassif. Ratr.. pp. 32, 73 (type, R. reinwardtn; not of 



Schlegel 1827) . 

 1838. Theloderma Tschudi, Olassif. Batr., pp. 32, 73 (type, T. leprosa). 

 1838. Buergeria Tschudi, Classif. Batr., pp. 34, 75 (type, Hyla buergen Schlegel). 

 1838. Polypedotes Tschudi, Classif. Batr., p. 34 (type, P. leucomystax). 

 1838. Polypedates Tschudi, Classif. Batr., p. 75 (correction). 

 1843. Trachyhyas Fitzinger, Syst. Rept., p. 31 (type, Polypedates ntgosiis=P. 



leucomystaoc). 

 1848. Dendricus Gistel, Naturg. Thierr., p. viii (substitute ior Buergeri"). 

 1890. Polypedetes Coues, Century Dictionary, IV, p. 4606 (emendation). 



Authors who reject Fitzinger's generic names of 1843 as nomina 

 nuda, in spite of the fact that they are accompanied by an exphcit state- 

 ment of type, are not always consistent, as for instance m the present 

 case. 



In Oken's Isis for 1827 Schlegel made a number of perfunctory 

 remarks about various herpetological matters, in which he mentioned 

 several manuscript names of genera instituted by Kuhl or H. Boie. 

 Among these is also Rhacophorus, which is introduced (p. 294) in the!* 

 following words: 



" Nach Hyla reiht Kuhl sein neues Geschlecht: Racophorus ein. Sp. : 

 Rac. reinwardtii Kuhl n. sp., palmatus KuTil {Hyla Daud.), moschatus 

 Kuhl n. sp., und noch zwey unbenannte Species vom Herrn Professor 

 Reinwardt mitgebracht." 



That is all. A generic name without the slightest trace of a defini- 

 tion or description accompanied by three specific names, two of which 

 are nomina nuda, as one {R. reinwardtii) was only described many 

 years after, the other {R. moscliatus) apparently never. Only one of 

 the species mentioned could be recognized when the generic name 

 vv^as published, viz, Daudin's Hyla paljnata, which of necessity must 

 l)e the type. And as this species is a typical Hyla, Racophorus of 1827 

 l:)ecomes a synonym of this genus. Any other result is preposterous, 

 for certainly a generic name without diagnosis to be tenable can not 

 well have for type an undescribed species.'' And yet Rhacophorus is 

 accepted by those who even refuse to quote Fitzinger's genera in the 

 synonymy. Even the rehabilitated Rhacophorus of Tschudi (1838) 

 is not in a nuich better position, since the species assigned to it were 

 not described even then, as the part of Schlegel's " Abbildungen " 

 containing the first description of Rhacophorus reinwardtii was pub- 

 lished after Tschudi's work '' appeared, but it is plainly untenable in 

 view of the difl^erent application of the name in 1827. 



« From TtoAi), much; TtySdoo, I jump. 



b That the genus Rhacophorus was understood in this sense by herpetologists before 

 Tschudi's time is shown by van der Hoeven's use of Racophorus in 1833 (Handb. 

 Dierk., II, Pt. 2, p. 311) for Hyla pahnata, faber and crepitans. 



<^ Tschudi, Classif. Batr., p. 32. 



