72 HERPETOLOGICAL NOTES. 



In General Zoology (1802^, Shaw gives a useful refer- 

 ence and some supplementary remarks as follows -: — 



" Rana Australiaca, Australian Frog. Naturalists' 

 Miscellany, vol. 6, pi. 200. 



R-ana spinipes. Schneid. Amph., p. 129-139. 



" This was first described in the Naturahsts' Miscellany ; 

 and so careful has Mr. Schneider been to preserve it from 

 oblivion, that he has twice described it in his own work 

 within the compass of a few pages. He is mistaken, how- 

 ever, in supposing it to exist in the British Museum ; the 

 figure having been etched from a drawing made in New 

 Holland, its native country. Its size appears to be some- 

 what larger than that of the common European Frog, 

 and its habit approaches rather to that of a toad, or a Natter- 

 Jack, which latter it seems to resemble in its manner of 

 walking, viz., with the limbs elevated, or in the manner 

 of the generality of quadrupeds. All the feet are unweb- 

 bed." 



There are only two Austrahan frogs which could 

 reasonably be compared with Rana australiaca, Shaw, 

 namely, Philocryphus flavoguttatus, Fletcher, and Limnody- 

 nastes dorsalis, Gray (eastern form, var. dumerilii, Ptrs.). 

 The " spines " on the hands, which, no doubt, prompted 

 Schneider to rename the species " spinipes," are secondary 

 sexual characters developed only in males, and are of 

 course seasonal. It is this character which prevents us 

 further considering it with Limnodynastes dorsalis. In 

 that frog, as in Hyla aurea, Lesson, the nuptial excresence is 

 in the form of a flat, horny, brown plate on the inner side 

 of the first finger, spines being quite absent. The dis- 

 tribution of these spines in Shaw's figure is not exactly 

 as shown by my specimens of Philocryphus, but gives a 

 general representation. The tympanum is figured as 

 hidden. As in the case of the spines this must not be 

 seriously considered. Even though the tj^mpanum of 

 Philocryphus is described as ' distinct,' it is nevertheless 

 not. obvious and may easily have escaped notice by a 

 colonial artist, or if indicated by him, not reproduced in 

 Shaw's etching. Such a character did not then have the 



