EAST AFRICAN REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 1 13 



Tho genus Megalixalus, solely distinguished from Hyperolius by a 

 pupil that is vertical when contracted, was only proposed by Giinther 

 in 1868, therefore subsequent to Cope's description of E.fulvovittatus. 

 Through the courtesy of Dr. Witmer Stone and Mr. H. W. Fowler 

 I have been able to examine the remains of the type of fulvovittatus 

 (Philadelphia Academy No. 3219), which, as stated by Noble " in 

 1924, is little more than a few fragments of skin and loose bones. 

 Thus the nature of the pupil in the type is unascertainable, the fin- 

 gers and toes are missing, and all the information that one can glean 

 is that the length of the tibial bone is exactly 9.5 xnm. and the femur 

 8 mm. 



In 1882 Boulenger united H. fulvovittatus with H. vittiger under the 

 name of Rappia fulvovittata but later (1911), apparently discovering 

 a vertical pupil in a Uganda specimen, he revived the name vittiger 

 but placed it in the genus Megalixalus. 



In 1913 Boettger, when reporting on Voeltzkow's Zanzibar collec- 

 tion, referred certain frogs (part of the series now M. C. Z. 10196-7) 

 from Mkokotoni to fulvovittata. In 1920 Miss Procter also referred 

 30 specimens which I collected at Morogoro and Duthumi, Tanganyika 

 Territory, to Ra'ppia fulvovittata. Following suit and using this mate- 

 rial for comparison I have confidently referred East African material 

 to Hyperolius fulvovittatus Cope ever since. 



Quite recently, however, some topotypic Liberian material (M. C. Z. 

 12024-6) was received by the Museum of Comparative Zoology and 

 an examination shows that while the general pattern is similar the 

 Liberian frog is a Megalixalus with a strong color pattern and the 

 East African form has only a very faint pattern and structural differ- 

 ences which are described below. 



From tho descriptions of Cope and Peters it seems obvious that 

 Boulenger was correct in 1882 when he placed vittiger in the synonymy 

 of fulvovittatus but both should have been referred to Megalixalus 

 and not to Rappia. 



Of the seven frogs in tho National Museum collectioa listed above 

 three have the eyes so poorly preserved that it is impossible to say 

 whether the pupil is vertical or not; in one (24318) it is round, in two 

 (24316-7) romidish but laterally compressed; in only one (24183) is it 

 definitely vertical. 



Mr. H. W. Parker has been to considerable trouble in assisting me to 

 thrash out the problem of the relationships of the western and eastern 

 frogs and has made careful comparison of the material in tho British 

 Museum. Under date of April 3 he writes: 



The following eight batches of specimens are all very well preserved and all 

 show a vertical pupil and are consequently Megalixalus * * * Boulenger 



«2 Noble, 1924, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 49, p. 255, footnote. 



