408 ui'lletin: miseim of compauative zoology. 



Tlu' spcfios of TclmatoUiiis arr so littlo known that it is advisable 

 to rtHlt'scriln' tin- typc-spt'riiiu'us of several of tlu* sprcics and to 

 append a kc\v of all those considered distinct. In reviewing the species 

 the fact has pre.sentetl itself very forcii)ly that Tehnatohius within 

 itself represents various sta<it>s in the reduction of l)oth uiaxiMary and 

 vomerine teeth. This reduction of teeth is as.sociated with a<iuatic 

 life. In the Lake Titlcaca region T. arntarirus is found along the 

 <^ges of the .small streams and ponds, while T. rulcus occurs only in 

 the deep wat<>rs of Lake Titicaca where according to Gannan (Hull. 

 AI. C. Z., 1S7'), 3, p. 277) it is able to remain for hours without coming 

 up to breathe. Gannan {Loc. cit.) says "As might l)e expected from 

 the exclusively aquatic habits of culcus, its skeleton is weaker and 

 less perfectly ossified than that of marmoratus [= our annaricuff]. 

 In the latter the skull and its ])rocesses are strong and the foramina 

 and fontanel very small." 



Garman pointed out that the vomerine teeth were very reduced, 

 sometimes absent on one side or the other. We have found that the 

 maxillary teeth of T. cvlms are also much reduced in size. 



As association exactly similar to that of T. adcus and T . aemaricus 

 is foimd in the Lake Junin region where T. jclskii is the semiaquatic 

 and Bntrach()pht/r7ius microphthalmus the lake-form. The latter species 

 although currently placed in a different genus and family from T. 

 cidciis agrees entirely with it in most of its internal and external char- 

 acters. Peters (Monatsber. Akad. wiss. Berlin, 1873, p. 413) and 

 Werner (Abh. Zool.-anthro. mus. Dresden, 1901, 9, no. 2, p. 13, fig.) 

 have shown that Batrachophrynus is a Telmatobius in every particular 

 except that it lacks the maxillary and vomerine teeth. A comparison 

 of Batrachophrynus with T. culcus suggests that this difference is not 

 fundamental or of any real significance. 



In the appended descriptions we have included Philippi's T. mon- 

 tcinus and T. luctis. We are strongly inclined to follow Boulenger's 

 suggestion (Zool. record. Kept., 1902, p. 14) and disregard these 

 names as well as those of the other utterly unrecognizable species 

 which he has propo.sed (Supplementa a los Batraquios Chilenos 

 <iescritos en la Historia fisica y politica de Chile de don Claudio Gay. 

 Santiago, 1902). Nevertheless it seems highly probable that Philippi 

 had some species of Tehnatobius before him when he wrote his paper, 

 so for the present it may be better to consider his proposed species 

 valid. 



Andersson's record (Ark. zool., 1906, 3, no. 12, p. 4) of T. jelskii 

 from the Andes of western Argentina and Werner's report (Zool. 



