Barnes on Batracian Animals and doubtful Reptils, 289 
wvalis i is 54, both according to Dr. Harlan, and the differ- 
ence i 
If a eee of two im the neck of the sloth, and that, 
contrary to the analogy of the whole class, is not allowed to 
constitute a different genus, why should a difference of seven 
or nine, or even eleven, in the back of a Proteus, constitute a 
ae genus? If the tail of the same species may differ 
fiftee see no reason why the back of different species may 
not dider nine. Allow but this, and our animal comes out 
triumphantly a Proteus. And such, beyond all doubt, he is. - 
Wf in any case genera are of use, that use will be found here, 
in grouping rogers animals that resemble each other in the 
following particu 
1. Body long, ae and scaleless. 
2. Tail vertically — forming a fin. 
3. Four feet with ‘clawless 
4. Interior jane like frogs? ? 
5. Exterior gill s like fishes. 
' 6. Three pairs of compound, ramified, fimbriated bran- 
Be 
. These very remarkable appendages persistent pees 
. Cartilaginons arches, and membranous opereula. 
. Nose elongated, sepia and very obtuse before. 
i Jaws furnished with tee 
11. Tongue free at the point only. 
12. Eyes very small, and nearly concealed by the skin. 
13. Ears covered by the common integuments, 
14. Nostrils at the extremity of the upper lip, 
15. The remarkably flattened and bony scull.* 
16 The habitation in water, and the meandering méetion 
of the body. 
17. The habit of occasionally emerging from the water, 
ank or shore 
NS cecal = ipa of the eelehon . to that of a 
water salamander, in the vertebers and false ri 
19. Body marked with transverse furrows, ‘aitating ribs, 
20. The peculiar form and structure of the branchiz. 
In all vied particulars the two animals agree, pe. these 
particulars are all and more than all those by which ie 
describes the Proteus in his Regné animal. Omitting 
* See Cuvier on the scull of the Proteus. 
VOL. XI.—NO. 2 37 
