284 MR.ST. GEORGE MIVART ON ANUKOUS BATRACHIANS. [ May 13, 
tongue and digital disks—which latter I decline to select. This 
character is the presence of maxillary teeth. 
On this subject Dr. Giinther observes *, “‘ When we consider that 
the lower jaw of the tailed Batrachians is provided with a series of 
teeth, and that these are wanting in all the tailless Batrachians, we 
are obliged to acknowledge the importance of this character.’’ Since 
this was written, however, two forms have been discovered which ave 
provided with mandibular teeth}; and this may perhaps be considered 
to strengthen Dr. Giinther’s refusal to consider the possession of teeth 
a primary character—a refusal he fortifies by reference to the Eden- 
tata and Salmonide. 
But the learned Doctor’s refusal was mainly grounded on his “not 
being able to consider the character of the dentition among the tail- 
less Batrachians as one intimately connected with their mode of life”’ , 
an objection the force of which I am so far from being disposed to 
admit that I would select for classificatory purposes the least 
adaptive characters I could find, provided they were constant and 
easily to be ascertained. It is true that in the Edentata we have 
edentulous and many toothed forms, but then these forms are ver 
distinct; we have no edentulous Armadillos and no toothed Ant- 
eaters, and indeed the order may well be primarily divided according 
to the dentition; so that I think that, on the whole, the Edentata 
favour my view. 
Characters as to dentition serve also to define the primary divisions 
of the orders Primates, Chiroptera, Insectivora, Cetacea, and Mar- 
supialia, at the least, if not others also ; and the edentulous Chelonia 
form the most natural and well-defined primary groups of existing 
Reptiles. 
Mr. Cope opposes the adoption of dental characters fur important 
divisions as follows :—‘‘ The increase of knowledge furnishes us with 
cases of rudimental dentition, indicating a less significance for the 
character which has been supposed to characterize the Bufoniformia. 
Such occurs in the genus Colostethus, Cope, which seems to be quite 
identical with Dendrobates, except in the possession of teeth. Miero- 
Ayla, a true Engystomatid, is said by Dr. Ginther to possess teeth ; 
and minute rugosities on the maxillee of Callula natatrix deceived 
me into the belief at one time that teeth actually existed. Among 
arciferous genera Eupemphix (Steindachner) is said by him to possess 
very minute teeth, which in some adults are entirely wanting” 
To this it may be replied that the loss of teeth in certain individuals, 
perhaps aged, can hardly be a valid reason to reject this character as 
one of weight. Secondly, Microhyla does not possess teeth; the 
possession of teeth was attributed to it by Dr. Gunther on the 
* Proce. Zool. Soc. 1858, p. 340. 
+ These are :—Hemiphractus scutatus, described by Peters, in ‘ Berlin. Monats.’ 
1863, p. 144; and Grypiscus, described by Cope in ‘Journal of Acad. Phila- 
delphia,’ 1867, vol. vi. part 2, p. 205. 
t Proc. Zool. Soe. 1858, p. 340. . 
§ Journal of the Acad. of Nat. Sc. of Philadelphia, new series, vol. vi. part 2, 
p. 189. 
