BATRACHIA SALIENTIA. 25 



Back with a bony dorsal shield ; toes very slightly webbed at the 

 base ; tympanum distinct. 



a. Large specimen. Brazil. — In the stomach I found a full-grown 



Cysti(jnatlius fuscus. 

 h. Adult. Brazil. Presented by Lord Stuart. 

 c. Veiy large specimen : skin. Brazil. 



2. Ceratophrys boiei. 



Ceratophrjs boiei, Wied, Beitr. i. p. 592 ; Dam. S,- Bibi: p. 437. 

 Stombus cormitus, Gravenh. Isis, 1825, p. 952. 



boiei, Gravenh. Delic. p. 50. t. 9. f. 1, 2. 



Ceratophrys granosa, Citv. Regne Anmi. ; Guerin, Iconoqr. Rept. 

 pi. 20. f. 2. 



Back without bony shield ; a transverse crest between the eyes ; 

 toes slightly webbed at the base ; tympanum indistinct. 



a. Adult male. Bi'azil. 



h. Adult female. South America. 



c, d. Adult. South America. Purchased of Mr. Argent. 



e. Half-grown. South America. 



/. Half-grown. South America. 



3. Ceratophrys megastoma. 



Bufo cornutus, Daud. Rain. p. 102. pi. 38, aud Rcpt. viii. p. 214 



(synon. wrong); Latr. Rept. ii.p. 117. f. 1. 

 Rana megastoma, Spix, Test. t. 24. f. 1. 



Ceratophrys daudiui, Cuv. Rec/ne Anim. ; Dtim. 4'- Bibr. p. 440. 

 Phryuoceros ?, Tsclmdi, Batr. p. 82. 



Back Avithout bony shield ; no crest between the eyes ; toes broadly 

 webbed ; tympanum distinct. South America. 



4. Ceratophrys ornata. 



Uperodou oruatum. Bell, Zuol. of the Becujle, Rept. p. 50. pi. 20. f. 2. 

 Trigonophrys rugiceps, HaUoicell, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Philud. 1856, 

 p. 298, and Joiirn. Ac. Nat. Sc. Philad. 1858, pi. 36, 



Back with a bony dorsal shield ; upper eyehd shghtly pointed, 

 triangular ; toes half- webbed ; tympanum indistinct. 



a, b. Adult male and female. Buenos Ay res. Presented by Charles 

 Darwin, Esq. — Original specimens of Bell's description and 



figlU'C. 



c. Adult female. Parana. From Mr. Cuming's Collection. 



d. Large specimen : stuffed. South America. Presented by Lieut, 



Maud, R.N. 



This species is so closely allied to Cenitojjhnjs coniatus, that one can 

 hardly understand how one naturalist could have placed it in a genus 

 of Bufonidse, and how another could have not only estabhshed a new 



