328 U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 206 



their only point of difference from Cope's original description of 

 podicipinus, excepting their slightly smaller dimensions. One of them, 

 USNM 98801, has been compared with the type of podicipinus, 

 ANS 14359, by Dr. E. R. Dunn, who finds them conspecific. 



Giinther's incorrect identification of British Museum specimens m 

 through r, also listed by Boulenger (1882a, p. 248) as caliginosus, 

 seems to be the source of all the subsequent errors in defining that 

 name. They are definitely podicipinus, and not ocellatus. 



There can be no possibility of confusing L. validus Garman with 

 podicipinvs. The presence of a wide lateroventral gland in the males 

 of validus J extending from the axilla nearly to the groin, and a similar 

 postfemoral gland ending below the knee and reaching halfway to the 

 anus (both glands deep chrome yellow^ in well-preserved specimens) 

 serve to distinguish this species. Neither melanonotus nor podicipinus 

 appear to have such glands, although podicipinus has the skin of these 

 areas somewhat thickened. The ventral coloration also distinguishes 

 podicipinus from validus, as it is dusky spotted with light in the 

 former and immaculate cream in the latter except for the clouded 

 throat. The coloration of the posterior femur is different, being 

 spotted light and dark in podicipinus, while the glandular area in 

 validus is marked by a black stripe, with a yellow one on each side 

 running lengthwise of the gland. In all other features the two species 

 show their close relationship, the vomerine teeth likewise being nearly 

 identical. 



Bolivian specimens CM 2508 (adult) and 2509, and USNM 115973 

 (half grown) are not exactly like the specimens from Maracajii in 

 Mato Grosso, or from Minas Gerais, as the ventral coloration is much 

 lighter, and in 2508 the two postanal glands are much more prominent 

 and dark colored. The dorsum is also not so rough, and in 2508 and 

 115973 the triangular dark mark between the eyes is less well defined 

 posteriorly. But if these Bolivian frogs are not true podicipinus, 

 they are very closely related to that species. 



Specimens examined 

 BRAZIL: 



Minas Gerais: Pirapora, USNM 98535, 98801-3, Cochran, March 1935. 



Rio Pandeiro, IB 503. 

 Rio de Janeiro: Guapi, Teres6polis, NMS (2), Giesler. 

 Rio Grande do Norte: Natal, USNM 81130 (cotype of L. natalensis) A. Lutz, 



1925. 

 Sao Paulo: Sao Paulo, CM 2465. 

 BOLIVIA: Buena Vista, USNM 118687-8, Steinbach. Rio Guapor6, CM 

 2508-9, Haseraan, July 18, 1909. Swamp along Rio Guapor6, USNM 

 115973, Haseman, July 27, 1909. 



