1918.] G. A, i3ouLENGEE, & N. Annandale : Rana iigrina. 61 



Dr. Smith ^ has recently sent nie three tadpoles, which agree well 

 with Flower's figures. 



Geographical distribution. — The species appears to be widely distri- 

 buted in Burma, Siam and China. In Burma it is found commonly 

 with Rana tigrina, s. s. and in Southern Siam with R. cancrivora, but 

 apparently it does not penetrate far south into the Malay Peninsula. 



According to Burkill ^ both this species and R. tigrina are eaten by 

 the Burmese. At Prome the former is said to be distinguished from 

 R. tigrina (which the Burmese call Hpa Zang under the name Hpa 

 Boung-she. It is stated by them to differ also in habits, in which 

 apparently it resembles R. crassa, although the inner metatarsal tubercle 

 is usually small and resembles that of R. tigrina in structure. The 

 tubercle is perhaps, however, somewhat more prominent than in the 

 latter. 



Rana crassa, Jerdon. 



1854. Rann crassa, Jerdon, Journ. As. Soc, Bengal, XXII, p. 531. 



Jerdon's original description of this species is' very short and is not 

 accompanied by a figure. The frog is, how-ever, in my opinion quite 

 distinct. The reason why I did not recognize it was that the only speci- 

 mens I had examined w^ere very old and all more or less distorted. Dr. 

 J. R. Henderson has been kind enough to send me five living frogs from 

 Madras. A comparison of these specimens with those already pre- 

 served in the Indian Museum has convinced me that there is much less 

 variation within the limits of Rana tigrina, s.s. than I formerly thought 

 to be the case.'^ 



The most important difference to be recognized in preserved material 

 lies not so much in the size as in the structure of the inner metatarsal 

 tubercle, and this character is very liable to be obscured. In R. crassa 

 the tubercle is usually larger than in R. tigrina, s. s., but my original 

 statement that its size is not correlated with other characters is literally 

 correct so far as either form is concerned. In R. tigrina, however, it is 

 a simple broad longitudinal ridge rounded on the inner surface and 

 situated at some little distance behind the base of the fifth toe ; whereas 

 in R. crassa it is much more prominent (at any rate in the living frog) 

 and is distinctly concave on the inner surface, with a strong blunt carina 

 running along its lower margin. It is also situated further forward 



1 Dr. Smith has just pubUshed further figures of the tadpole. See Jont. Nat. Hist' 

 Soc, Siam II, p. 263, pi. iv, figs. 2, 2a. 



2 AgricuU. Ledg., No. 2, pp. 13 and 15 (1911). 



3 Since Dr. Boulenger saw this note Dr. Henderson has sent me twelve further speci- 

 mens of R. crassa well preserved in spirit. So far as the immediate neighbourhood 

 of Madras is concerned they bear out the views expressed above. There is, however, 

 one very important fact connected with them, viz., that Dr. Henderson captured at the 

 same time a single specimen to which he drew my attention and which I cannot dis- 

 tinguish from R. rugulosa from Burma. The occurrence of a single individual of thi.s 

 form, so far from its proper home, suggests the question, may not R. rugulosa (or R. 

 tigrina var. burkilli as Dr. Boulenger calls it) have arisen as a mutation of R. crassa F 

 The fact that specimens of R. crassa itseK have been found aporadically in Northern India, 

 would further suggest that it also may have arisen as a mutation, ivom the typical 

 R. tigrina. Further evidence is, however, necessary before attempting to answer this 

 question. In any case it has no bearing on the taxonomic position of R. cancrivora. 



