1907.] OF A FROG OF THE GENUS MEGALOPHRYS. 327 



both frogs agree in the separation by web, only that the web 

 is more extended towards the tips of the toes in Pelobates* . In 

 this, my species apparently agrees with Megcdophrys longijMs. 

 It has, however, a fairly conspicuous inner metatarsal tubercle, 

 but nowhere projecting from the surface of the foot as in 

 Pelobates. I found no trace of an outer metatarsal tubercle or 

 of subarticular tubei'cles. These are absent in M, longipes, but 

 described (together with the inner metatarsal tubercle) as " in- 

 distinct " in M. montana and (by inference) 31. nasuta. 



There are other characters used for systematic purposes in 

 which the individual which I have dissected does not agree with 

 its presumed congeners. The vomerine teeth, which are very 

 few T and form only a narrow band over the projecting region 

 of each vomer, are situated distinctly to the inside of and not 

 behind each choana. And the loreal region is deeply concave, as it 

 is stated to be in Megcdophrys montana and (by infei"ence) in 

 M. nasuta by BoulengerJ, bat apparently not in M. longipes. 

 As a part of the generic definition of Megalojihrys, Boulenger uses 

 the form of the tongue, which is described as " subcirculai', 

 indistinctly nicked and free behind." In. my example of 

 Megalophrys the tongue is very faintly § nicked behind. It is 

 also nearly circular and free behind. 



Very important also in fixing the systematic position of this 

 Frog are two osteological characters which have been largely 

 used in defining the genera of Batrachia. The fusion of the 

 sacral vertebra with the ensuing coccyx is a rare feature in 

 Bati'achian osteology. It occurs, however, in Pip>a and among 

 the Pelobatidfe. In two genera only, viz., Scaphiopus and Pelobates, 

 does Boulenger describe the sacrum and coccyx as confluent. 

 They are most unquestionably so in the Frog which I describe 

 in the present communication, and this confluence is incidentally 

 shown in the drawing [cf. text-fig. 93) on p. 332, illustrating the 

 arrangement of certain muscles. This fusion of the sacral 

 vertebi'a with the coccyx is not only an impoi'tant classificatory 

 fact if existing systems are to be respected, but raises another 

 fact of greater imjjortance. It is well known that among those 

 genera of Anura in which this fusion occurs, viz. Pipa, Xenopus, 

 and Hymenochirus — the entire set of genera constituting the 

 Aglossa — and in Pelobates, Scafhiopus, and the present genus 

 among the Pelobatidae, and in Bombinator among the Discoglossidfe, 

 the apparently single sacral vertebra is really double in the case 

 of Pipa and Pelobates, formed of three vertebrae in Hymenochirus, 

 and of only a single vertebi'a in Scaphiopus and Bombinaior. It 

 becomes, therefore, a. matter of great interest to ascertain what 

 is the arrangement that characterises the sacrum of the species 



* Giiiither, Cat. BRtr. Sal. 1858, p. 136, speaks of the toes of Ceratophryne nasuta 

 as " completeljr free." 



f Giiotlier, Cat. Batr. Sal. 1858, p. 136, writes^" Vomtrine teeth none." 



X Cat. Batr. Sal. p. 542. 



§ " Tongue entire behind." — Giinther. 



