194 CYSTIGNATHID!. 
subarticular tubercles small ; two small metatarsal tubercles. The 
hind limb being carried forwards along the body, the tibio-tarsal 
articulation reaches in front 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. 
Ae Ss S. America. 
2. Elosia bufonia. 
Elosia bufonium, Girard, Proc. Ac. Philad. vi. 1853, p. 425, and U.S. 
Expl. Exp., Herp. p. 66, pl. 4. f. 23-27. 
Differs from /. nasus chiefly in the shorter hind limbs, the tarso- 
metatarsal articulation not extending beyond the tip of the snout. 
Rio Janeiro. 
3. Elosia vomerina. 
Elosia vomerina, Girard, Proc. Ac. Philad. vi. 1853, p. 425, and US. 
Expl, Exped. Herp., p. 69, pl. 4. f. 17-22. 
Tongue subcircular, discoid, broadly emarginated posteriorly. 
Vomerine teeth ina transverse and rectilinear series immediately in 
advance of the anterior margin of the choane. 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. 
Rio Janeiro. 
8. PHYLLOBATES*. 
Phyllobates, Dum. § Bibr. viii. p. 637; Giinth. Cat. p. 90; Cope, 
Nat. Hist. Rev. 1865, p. 112, and Journ. Ac, Philad. (2) vi. 1866, 
p. 96. 
* 1. Phyllobates glandulosus, (Fitz.) Stemdachn. Novara, Amph. p. 58, pl. 8. 
f. 1-4.—Brazil. 
2. Phyllobates peruensis, Steindachn. 1. ¢, p. 53, pl. 4. f. 8-11.—Peru. (Perhaps 
a Hylodes.) 
3. Phyllobates elegans.—Dr. Giinther has mentioned (Proce. Zool. Soc. 1868, 
p. 479), but not described, under this name a Phyllobates of which but one spe- 
cimen—from Bogota—is in the collection. He thought this species might be 
the same as Liuperus elegans, Peters, Mon. Berl. Ac. 1868, p. 447 ; but from the 
original description of Prof. Peters, and from a subsequent note (eod. loc. 1869, 
p- 879), Iam convinced that the specimen in the British Museum is altogether 
different from Liuperus elegans, which probably belongs to the genus Paludicola, 
as defined in the present Catalogue. I have not been able to refer this Phyllo- 
bates 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. 
