212 G. A. BoULENGER, 
L. von Menerry !) and Van Kampen ?). This conclusion unfortunately 
necessitates a change in the name of the common Papuasian species, 
as H. infrafrenata beneficiates of two months earlier date in publi- 
cation over H. dolichopsis. This is particularly unfortunate as the 
species was so clearly defined by Core from adult specimens, whilst 
GÜNTHER based his name on a young, at a time when he refused to 
regard the adult as more than a variety of H. caerulea.?) 
Since the publication of the British Museum Catalogue, the 
collection of Australian and Papuasian frogs has been considerably 
increased, and it is necessary to reconsider the definition of the two 
species, A. caerulea and H. infrafrenata (dolichopsis), in the light of 
the new material, which includes examples of what appears to 
represent three further, elosely related species. 
As regards the true Hyla caerulea, originally described from 
New South Wales specimens, and of which examples are often received 
alive in Europe, we have now before us a large series, from the 
following localities: 
New South Wales: Sydney, Tamworth (D. A. PoRTER). 
Queensland: Moreton Bay, Port Mackay (H. Linse Rora), Cook- 
town (H. Lıns RoTH, BELLENDEN Ker). 
Northern Territory: Port Essington (EARL OF DERBY, GOULD), 
Port Darwin (R. G. S. Bucktaxp), Alexandria (W. STALKER). 
Western Australia: Nicol Bay (Du BouLAy), Roebuck Bay (DaAutr). 
Islands of Torres Straits: Murray Island (S. MACFARLANE), 
Thursday Island (Coprınger), Mer Island (HApvor). 
New Guinea: Dinawa, Owen Stanley Range (PrArtr). 
Measurements of a number of these specimens are given below, 
and a study of the series necessitates the following corrections and 
emendations to the description previously given by me: 
As already stated by GÜNTHER, the fingers may be as much as 
half webbed, whilst in a female from New South Wales (No. 12 of 
table of measurements), they are barely one fourth webbed. The disks 
of the fingers, in the same specimen, are smaller than the tym- 
panum ?), whilst in an other female from Queensland (No. 1 of table) 
1) Term. Fuz. Budapest, Vol. 20, 1897, p. 413; Vol. 21, 1898, p. 176. 
2) Nova Guinea, Vol. 5, Zool., p. 172 (1906). 
3) Zool. Record for 1867, p. 148 (1868). 
4) The position of the vomerine teeth on a level with the posterior 
border ofthe choanae excludes the possibility of such a specimen representing 
Dum&rın and BIBRoN’s H. jervisiensis from. New South Wales. 
