88 phoceedings of the 



Two other {];onera, Cophophrj/ne (C. sikliwev/si/i) and Oj^hrj/o- 

 phyj/ne {0. min-OKtonia), \\hich are at present ])laeecl witli tlie 

 Jjiit'onida? but which ap;ree with tlie Pelohatida; in the character 

 oF the vertebral column, should probabl}' he included in that 

 family. Tliey differ from the Pelobatidfe merely in the absence 

 of teeth and, in describing Oji7n-i/op7iri/ne, Bouleuger remaiks 

 ('03, p. ] 7) that " One must regard it as on the whole nearer to 

 the latter (Pelobatidre) rhan to the true toads ; another instance 

 of the over-estimation of dentition as a character by which to 

 define families of the Batrachia.'"' 



In Scaphiopus and in one species of Pdohafes (]\ fvscus) there 

 appears to be an invariable fusion of the sacral vertebra with the 

 coccyx comparable to that which occurs in the Aglossa, but in 

 both of these Pelobatidaj the vertebrse are uniformly procrelous. 

 A similar fusion appears to occur as an individual variation in 

 some other species of the Pelobatida) (e. g. P. ctihrijies, M. nasidd, 

 Boulenger, '08), but even where this variation coincides with the 

 occurrence of opisthocn^lous centra there is no danger of confusion 

 with the Aglossal condition, for, in the latter, there are never 

 more than seven pre-sacral vertebrae. 



Bomliinator is the only form, outside of the Pelobatidae, in 

 Avhich the sacral vertebra articulates with the coccyx by but a 

 single condyle. Like the Pelobntidse, too, it is notable for the 

 frequency of occurrence of individual variations. The vertebral 

 column can, however, be distinguished from even an opisthoccelous 

 specimen of the Pelobatidae by the attached ribs. 



Pelodytes, which appears to lead towards the Bufonidae, forms 

 an exception, apparently, to the rule that in the Pelobatidie the 

 sacral vertebra has but a single condyle for the coccyx. Ac- 

 cording to Boulenger ('97) the posterior convexity of the centrum 

 oF the sacral vertebra is doubled in this genus. This is certainlv 

 true of the single specimen (191'^, 0. 15. 5.) in the British Museum 

 Collection. There are, however, conflicting statements upon this 

 matter, for Gadow describes ('01, p. KJl) this genus as having but 

 a single condyle, this character being made use of to distijiguish 

 Pelo(h/tes from Leptohrachmm , which is said to have two coccygeal 

 condyles. On the other hand, Boulenger has merged Lepto- 

 hrachium in the genus Mer/alop7iri/s, which has but a single condyle 

 for the coccyx. The explanation of these apjiarent contradictions 

 may be that the doubling of the condyle is, in these genera, subject 

 to some variation. 



(iii.) The Bufonidse, Hylidfc, and Cystignathidfe are, without 

 exception, in the species which 1 have examined, distinguished 

 from the Pelobatida? (excluding Pelodytes) in having the sacral 

 vertebra provided with two coccygt-al condyles. Otherwise, in 

 the uniformly procffilous condition of the vertebra?, they closely 

 resemble the Pelobatidre and are sharply marked off from the 

 flrmisternial forms in which the diplasiocrelous condition prevails. 



The nemi[)hractidaD, however, which are included by Gadow i n 

 the Cystignathidse, have been described as possessing opisthocuilou s 



