574 



REPORT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM, 1902. 



Genus LEPTODACTYLUS" Fitzinger. 



1826. Leptodadylus Fitzinger, Neue Class. Rept., p. 38 (type Rana typhonia). 

 1830. Oystignaihus Wagler, Nat. Syst. Amph., p. 202 (type Rana pachypus). 

 1865. Gnathophysa Cope, Nat. Hist. Review, 1865 (p. 112) (type Rana labyrinthica). 



Although not a frog- in a strictly .scientific sense, the Leptodactylus 

 counterfeits the external appearance of the true frogs to perfection, 

 and the one living in Porto Kico will probably always be known to the 

 English-speaking people there as the frog, as it has always been known 

 to the Spanish population by the name of "Rana." 



Only one species occurs in Porto Rico and dependent islands, pos- 

 sibly originally introduced through the agency of man, as elsewhere 

 suggested in this work (p. 5M2). The genus is tropical American. 



LEPTODACTYLUS ALBILABRIS & (Guenther). 



1859. Oystignaihus albilabris Guenther, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (3), IV, p. 217 (type 

 locality, St. Thomas, W. I.; types in Brit. Mus.; Riise coll.). — Reix- 

 HARDTand LuETKEN,Vid. Meddel. Naturh. Foren. (Copenhagen) 1862 

 (1863), p. 205; reprint, p. 53 (St. Thomas, St. Croix, Just van Dyck). — 

 Leptodactylus a. Boulenger, Cat. Batr. Sal. Brit. Mus., 1882, p. 245, pi. 

 xvi, fig. 4.— Boettger, Kat. Batr. Samml. Mus. Senckenberg., 1892, 

 p. 31 (Porto Rico). 



1868. Oystignaihus albilabris var. CoPE,Proc. Phila. Ac, 1868, p. 311 (Porto Rico). 



1876. Oystignaihus lypfionius Peters, Mon. Ber. Berlin Akad. Wiss., 1876, p. 709 



(Porto Rico) (not of Daudin). — Gundlach, Anal. Soc. Espan. Hist. 

 Nat., X, 1881, p. 313 (Porto Rico).— Stahl, Fauna Puerto-Rico, 1882, 

 pp. 71,161 (Porto Rico). 



1877. Oystignaihus labialis Cope, Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc, XVII, 1877, p. 90 



(type locality uncertain, probably Mexican); XVIII, 1879, p. 270 

 (Tehuantepec and Potrero, near Cordova, Vera Cruz). 



Like Boulenger, I have compared Tehuantepec specimens, Cope's 

 C. labialis, with the Antillean series, without being able to discover 

 an} T tangible difference upon which to base a separation. To prove 

 that there is no difference whatever in proportions I submit the fol- 

 lowing measurements, carefully taken from two individuals of identi- 

 cal size: 



Measurements. 



Total length 



Eye to nostril 



Diameter of tympanum 



Axilla to groin 



Fore leg 



Hind leg from vent to tip of longest toe , 



Hind foot from outer metatarsal tubercle to tip of longest toe 



«A£7rrds, slender; 8di<rvAos, digit. 



& Albiiabris=yi ith white lips. 



