194 CYSTIGNATHIDiE. 



siibarticiilar tubercles small ; two small metatarsal tubercles. The 

 bind limb being carried forwards along the body, the tibio -tarsal 

 articulation reaches in fi-ont of the eye. Skin smooth, slightly 

 tubercular on the sides. Brown above, spotted with darker ; hinder 

 side of thighs marbled ; limbs cross-barred ; lower surfaces dirty 

 white, the belly marbled with greyish. 

 Brazil. 



«. $ . S. America. 



2. Elosia bufonia. 



Elosia bufonium, Girard, Froc. Ac. Philad. vi. 18-53, p. 423, and U.S. 

 Expl Exp., Herp. p. 66, pi. 4. f. 23-27. 



Differs from E. nasus chiefly in the shorter hind limbs, the tarso- 

 metatarsal articulation not extending beyond the tip of the snout, 

 llio Janeiro. 



3. Elosia vomerina. 



Elosia vomerina, Girard, Froc. Ac. FJiilad. vi. 1853, p. 423, a7id U.S. 

 Expl. Exped. Herp., p. 69, pi. 4. f. 17-22. 



Tongue subcircular, discoid, broadly emarginated posteriorly. 

 Vomerine teeth in a transverse and rectilinear series immediately in 

 advance of the anterior margin of the choana;. Nostril a little 

 nearer the tip of the snout than the eye. Tympanum proportionally 

 larger than in the two preceding species. Inner metatarsal tubercle 

 resembling a rudimentary toe. If the hind limb is carried forwards 

 along the body, the middle of the tarsus reaches the tip of the snout. 

 Skin perfectly smooth. 



Eio Janeiro. /pa /^ 



8.(PHYLL0BATES* l/.^eji-^. /SS) 



Phvllobates, Bum. ^- Bihr. \m. p. 637 ; Giintli. Cat. p. 90 ; Cope, 

 Nat. Hist. Rev. I860, p. 112, and Journ. Ac. Fhilad. (2) vi. 1866, 

 p. 96. 



* 1. Fhyllohates glaiuluhsus, (Fitz.) Stcindnchn. Novara. Ampb. p. 53, pi. 3. 

 f. 1-4.— Brazil. 



2. Phi/Uobates peniensis, SteinclacLu. 1. c. p. 53, pi. 4. f. 8-11. — Peru. (Perhaps 

 a Hylodcs.) 



3. Phyllobates clcgans. — Dr. Giiutlier has mentioned (Proc. Zool. Sec. 1868, 

 p. 479), but not descvibed, under this name a I'hyUobcdes of which but one spe- 

 cimen — from Bogota — is in the collection. He thought this species might be 

 the same as Liii^Krus cicgaiis, Peters, Mon. Berl. Ac. 1863, p. 447 ; but I'romthe 

 original description of Prof. Peters, and from a subsequent note (eod. loc. 1869, 

 p. 879), 1 aui convinced that the specimen in the British Museum is altogether 

 different from Liupcrus elcgana, which probably belongs to the genus Pcdudicola, 

 as defined in the present Catalogue. I have not been able to refer this Plii/Uo- 

 batci to any of the species described. But I think it more prudent to put it 

 aside than establish a species upon insufficient material in a genus of which I 

 have no direct knowledge. 



