330 MR. F. E. BBDDARD ON THE ANATOMY [Apr. 9' 



conclnsion is the extraordinary similarity in detail — I particularly 

 recall the three warty tubercles upon the back and the "nose- 

 leaf " — between this species and M. nasuta ; but coupled with 

 these are also, as it would appear, diflerences in featvires of similar 

 or nearly similar value. Thus the species described here differs 

 from M. nasuta, in that the vomerine teeth are within a line 

 ioining the choanfe, and that the inner finger is distinctly longer 

 than the second. Again, however, I infer these differences, 

 being unable to find any definite description of the characters in 

 Megalophrys nasuta. 



The above statement concerning those characters used in the 

 discrimination of genera and species among the Anura seems to 

 me (unless very grave errors have crept into existing descriptions) 

 to show that quite possiblj' two species have been confused under 

 the name of Megalophrys nasitta, which may even be legitimately 

 referred to difi'erent genera. I do not propose, however, for the 

 present to give a name to the species the anatomy of which I deal with 

 in the following pages, in case systematists have really had before 

 them, and described, a Frog which is identical with it. But even 

 in this case the foregoing description of external characters is not 

 without use ; for some of these characters have been undoubtedly 

 ■overlooked, or imperfectly described, as in the case of the sternum. 



The above account of the systematic characters of the Frog 

 which, on a superficial examination, would be referred to Mega- 

 lophrys nasuta as described by Cantor, Giinther, Schlegel, and 

 Werner, and, I presume, Boulenger*, may be conveniently sum- 

 marised for future reference. The following is a restatement of 

 the characters of Megalophrys nasuta based upon the single female 

 example of a Frog from Borneo, which, from a survey of thfe 

 ■external characters as described by sevei'al zoologists, would be 

 referred to that species ; — 



Length about 5 inches. Head broad and depressed, with loreal 

 region excavated. Tympanum invisible. Long palpebral process 

 over each eye and an upwardly directed leaf-shaped process on 

 the snout. Vomerine teeth few, between choanfe. Tongue sub- 

 circular, very faintly nicked, free behind. Teeth only on upper 

 jaw. Three inequisized warts forming a triangle upon posterior 

 region of head. Skin of back induraced, like that of head, to a 

 point behind front ends of ilia. This region separated by a narrow 

 glandular fold from lateral region, also, but more slightly, 

 indurated, which is again separated by a similar fold from the 

 warty ventral surface. Three prominent tubercles upon back, one 



* Mr. Bouleiiger's- recent description (Ann. Mus. Genov. ser. 2, iv. p. 512) of a 

 Frog-, referred to the genus ilegalophrys, and to a new species of the same, viz., 

 M.fefB, wliich was later {ibid. vii. p. 750) removed by him to the genus Lepto- 

 hracliium (with which he also fused the genus Xenophrijs), seems to show that 

 Mr. Boulenger had not before him at the time when he wrote his ' Catalogue of the 

 Batrachia Salientia' examples of the Frog described by myself in the present 

 communication. For he has mentioned in describing " Megalophrys" fea the 

 fact that the vertebrae are procoelous and that they are oijisthoccclous in Ileyalophrj/s 

 nasuta. 



