BY DENE B. FRY. 75 



nastes," a character which does not occur, so far as I am 

 aware, in any other Pelobatid. As the chief difference 

 between the Cystignathids mentioned and the Pelobatid 

 Lechriodiis appears to he in the extent of dilation of the 

 sacral vertebrse, I have figured those of two Australian 

 genera shoAving close affinity, to show the fallacy of such 

 a character for distinguishing purposes. A glance at the 

 figure shows that a clear line of demarcation between the 

 two families with regard to this character does not exist. 



Fig. 2. — a. Sacrum of Liinnodynastes dorsalis. Gray. 



b. Sacrum of Heleioporus albopunctatus. Gray. 



c. Sacrum of Lechriodus melanopyga, Doria. 



The anterior edge of the neural arch antl the zygopophyses of c were 

 badly broken during dissection. 



In the Neotropical genera of Cystignathidae, true 

 cyhndrical diapophjses are an almost invariable rule, but 

 the Australian members of this familj^ exhibit all stages 

 between that of Heleioporus with considerably dilated 

 diapophyses and the condition shown in South American 

 genera. In Crinia, an Australian genus of Cj^stignathidse, 

 the sacral diapophysis is quite cyhndrical ; in some Lim- 

 nodynastes they are slightly dilated, most conspicuously 

 so in L. dorsalis, here figured ; in Chiroleptes and Heleio- 

 porus the}- are so expanded as to be nearer the condition 

 of the Pelobatid Lechriodus than to the t}-pical Cystig- 

 nathidse. I think that these Australian genera should 

 be considered as true Cystignathids, but Boulenger's 

 definition of the sacral diapophysis — cylindrical or slightly 

 dilated — hardly imphes their true condition if we are to 

 regard Lechriodus as possessing strongly dilated vertebrae. 



The home of the Cystignathidae is undoubtedly South 

 America. It appears just as certain that our Austrahan 

 members of this family have arisen directly from South 

 American stock, though showing divergent lines of specialis- 



