1889.] ON SOME SPKCIES OF THE GENUS RHACOPHORUS. 27 



Little had been added to our knowledge of this curions form 

 sinre the publication of the notice of it in Dresser's ' Birds of Europe ' 

 (iv. p. 383, pi. 242). 



The specimens in the Society's collection had i)een purchased from 

 M. Augeard, Preparateur Naturaliste, 22, Rue des Casernes, Oran, 

 and were believed to have been captured in the south of the Province 

 of Oran. 



In a recently published number of the 'Journal fiir Ornithologie ' 

 (1888, p. 225) would also be found a notice of S|)ecimens of this 

 Lark having been obtained by Dr. A. Koenig in the Tunisinn Sahara 

 in May 188^7. 



Dr. Gixnther, F.R.S., exhibited and made remarks on some fishes 

 which had been dredged up by Mr. John Murray off tlie west coast 

 of Scotland, and were not previously known to occur in British 

 waters, viz., Cottus liUjeborgii (Collett), Triglops vturrayi, sp. n., 

 Gadus esmarkii (Nilss.), Otms reinliardii (Collett), Fierasfer acus 

 (Briinn.), Scojjelus scoticus, -sp. n., and iStomias ferox (Ruhrdt.). 



The following communications were read : — 



1. On the Species of Bhacophorus confounded under the 

 name of i?. maculatus. By G. A. Boulenger. 



[Eeceived January 15, 1889.] 



A recent reinvestigation of the material in the British Museum lias 

 convinced me that several species have been confounded by me, as 

 well as most of my predecessors in Indian herpetology, under the 

 name of Ehacophonis (or Polypedates) maculatus. Apart from 11. 

 sexvirgatus, Gravh. ' {quadrilineatus, Wgm.), which is nothing but 

 a colour-variety of the eastern form, R. leucomystax, Gravh. {rugosus, 

 D. & B.), two si)ecies have been described, upon the value of which 

 herpetologists have been in doubts, viz. Polyp, crucir/er, Blyth, and 

 P. seutiger, Ptrs., both from Ceylon. The former was separated on 

 account of its larger size and coloration. Nevill, who has recently 

 taken up the matter again, distinguishes it from R. maculatus by its 

 much larger size, stouter feet, and the uniform colouring of the 

 hinder part of thighs, which never present any approach to the 

 white or yellow spotting and marbhng observable in R. maculatus. 

 Neither the characters pointed out oy Blyth nor those given by 

 Kevill can serve to distinguish R. cruciger from the continental 

 R. macular f, if the latter be taken in the customary comprehensive 

 sense ; and the total absence of white spotting on the thigh is so far 

 from being const;iut that one of the specimens in the British Museum, 



1 Hylorana loiiyiiies, Fischer, of which the type specimen is now in the 

 Museum, is anotlier synonym of this variety. 



