584 



EEPORT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM, 1902. 



I have no specimen.s fvoni Martinique itself, but with a large series 

 from Guadeloupe (whence it is said the species was introduced to 

 Martinique), which, therefore, I take to represent E. martinicensis 

 fairlv well, and another large series from St. Kitts agreeing with the 

 Guadeloupe series, I nu;st dissent from the above conclusion. The 

 Porto Rican specimens are certainly ver}^ close to the latter species, 

 and the proportions of the hind legs to the length of the head and 

 l>ody are nearly the same; nevertheles.s, the Porto Rican specimens 

 have constantly a shorter second toe and the exposed tympanum 

 averages larger. In the Porto Rican specimens the end of the first 

 toe when pressed alongside the second nearly reaches the disk of the 



17 IS 



Figs. 15-19.— Eleutherodactylx's auriculatus. 2 >: natural size. 15, .side of head: 16, top of head; 

 17, inside of moutli; 18, underside of fore foot; 19, underside of liind foot. No. 2C912, U.S.N.M. 



latter, while in the Guadeloupe, St. Kitts, and Tobago specimens the 

 interval between the two disks is considerably larger than the diameter 

 of the disks. 



In both respects the Porto Rican specimens agree well with typical 

 Cuban specimens of E. auriculatm (Cope), from which 1 can not sepa- 

 rate them. Boulenger refers three Santo Domingo specimens in the 

 British Museum to the same species, and describes them as having the 

 first toe "as long as second," a character he also uses in the "key" as 

 the distinction of //. auriciHatus^ and I take it that by this phrase he 

 intends to express the same relation between the toes as I have 

 described above. A poorly preserved specimen in the U. S. National 

 Museum (No. 9858) from Santo Domingo I am also unable to separate 

 from E. auriculatuH. 



I can not agree with Boulenger, however, in placing Reinhardt and 



