1907.] OF A FROG OF THE GENUS MEGALOPHRYS. 325 



nasuta and M. montana, regarding them, in accordance with the 

 first and erroneous view of Glinther, as male and female respectively 

 of Megalophrys inontajia. EdeHng* has figured the entire animal 

 from above. All of these descriptions, with the exception of 

 that of Boulenger, leave a good deal to be desired in point of 

 details of importance, doubtless because those details were 

 hardly appreciated as important at the time the papers or works 

 in question were written. To Mr. Boulenger "s definition, Werner 

 has added a more accurate account of the dermal ossifications, 

 the mere occurrence of which was known to his predecessors. I 

 shall have occasion to refer again to all the above-named writers 

 in the following statement of certain differences which the Frog 

 studied by me shows as compared with M. nasuta. 



The length of the Frog which forms the subject of the present 

 commimication is 135 mm. from snout to vent, a measurement 

 which nearly agrees with that of Wernei' t, whose description is 

 not sufiiciently comprehensive to allow of a confirmation of his 

 identification. The most salient extei-nal characters which point 

 to my Frog being identical with Ifegalophi'ys nasuta are, iii 

 correlation with other chai^acteis, the long palpebral horn-like 

 appendages and the leaf -like appendage upon the snout. The 

 tympanum moreover is concealed, and the loreal region is ex- 

 cavated. Furthermore, the conical warts agree exactly in their 

 disposition with the descriptions given by Cantor, Glinther, and 

 Werner ; that is to say, there are three, one on the saci'um median, 

 and a pair anteriorly in the shoulder-region. There are, more- 

 over, three warts upon the head, all of difl^erent sizes, arranged 

 in a triangle, the largest occupying the apex of the triangle 

 which is directed backwards. E deling J, however, whose figure 

 of the ^ ^ s\)ecies" Megalop/iJ-i/s chysii is not very good, represents only 

 the sacral wart and nothing of the kind upon the head. Those, 

 indeed, seem to have also escaped the attention of others. No 

 characters of value are introduced into his two descriptions of 

 the species, and it is impossible to be certain of the identity of 

 " Megalofyhrys chysii." The appendages over the eye and on the 

 nose are not of course diagnostic of the genus or species ; foi' 

 in various Hemiphractidpe there are similar appendages, and 

 this family is not to be confused with the Pelobatidse. Moreover, 

 Mr. Boulenger has recently § removed from the genus Megalophrys 

 and assigned to the allied genus Leptobrachium, Megalophrys fem\\, 

 a species with prominent palpebral processes, the existence of 

 which doubtless originally influenced Mr. Boulenger in placing 

 the species in that genus. It has also the hard skin upon the 

 back which is mentioned as being more strongly developed in 



* Nat. Tijdschr. Nedevl. Indie, vol. xxvii. 1864, p. 265 & plate. 



f Giinther also (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, xi. p. 419) speaks of the frog as 

 5 inches long. Flower, on the other hand (P. Z. S. 1899, p. 916), gives 90 mm. as 

 extreme length. 



+ Ned. Tijdschr. v. de Dierk. vol. ii. 1865, p. 205, & Nat. Tijdschr. Nederl. Indie, 

 vol. xxvii. 1864, p. 265 with plate. 



§ Ann. Mus. Oenova, vol. vii. p. 750. || Ibi vol. v. p. 512. 



