94 BULLETIN 151, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 



the extremities which Power states is not the case in gutteralis. On 

 the other hand, I find that the characters by which he differentiates 

 the new form are well within the range of variation of East African 

 regularis. I regard the homy spines tipping the tubercles in gut- 

 teralis as a breeding character, probably the dark-brown tips of the 

 fingers also; both are present and absent in large numbers of the 

 series before me. As a matter of fact the common square-marked 

 toad of East Africa is of the slender-fingered type which Power has 

 figured and to which he gives the name of gutteralis, and the second 

 specimen which I picked up (No. 40986 from Nairobi) has the gut- 

 teralis-sh&])ed parotoid, its width being clearly contained three times 

 in its length; the size of these glands has a very wide range of varia- 

 tion in the series brought back by the Smithsonian East African 

 Expedition. 



It may be, of course, that Bufo regularis gutteralis also occurs in 

 East Africa in the same pools as B. r. regvlaris, as was the case at 

 Lobatsi, but without hearing their call notes — and the series before 

 me maintains a conspiracy of silence — I can not distinguish them 

 with reasonable certainty. 



Through the courtesy of Monsieur Angel I have been able to 

 examine the toad on which he based his record of the occurrence of 

 the South African Bufo granti Boulenger on Mount Kenya at an 

 altitude of between 1,500 and 2,000 meters. I have compared it 

 A^ith some of the actual cotypes (M. C. Z. 3223-4) of B. granti, a 

 species which was referred to the synonymy of B. gariepensis Smith 

 by Hewitt and Power,*' and have no hesitation in referring the 

 Kenya toad to B. r. regularis. Eight toads in the above series (Nos. 

 41128-30, 41222, 41224, 41448, 49262-3) present a striking resem- 

 blance to these cotypes of B. granti, as well as to other gariepensis in 

 the Museum of Comparative Zoology, in their rather uniform clay 

 color with an absence of markings except on the snout and limbs 

 and in one individual (No. 41129) in which may be distinguished the 

 head markings and light dorsal line of regularis. They also agree 

 •ji their general smoothness and flattened tubercles, though how far 

 preservation, packing, and friction might be responsible for this con- 

 dition it is difficult to say. The character of the first finger being 

 just longer than the second (as in gariepensis) to appreciably longer 

 (regularis) is of no assistance in identifying them, for both conditions 

 occur; that is to say, they may be matched with known examples of 

 either species in this respect. They may, however, be readily dis- 

 tinguished from gariepensis by the webbing of the fourth toe reaching 

 the base of the last phalanx but two (that is, there are three ter- 

 minal phalanges of this toe free), for in gariepensis the webbing does 

 not extend even thus far. The tarso-metatarsal tubercle of the 



« Hewitt and Power, 1913, Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Africa, vol. 3, p. 174. 



