344 MR. F. E. BEDDAllD OX THE ANATOMY [Apr. 9, 



with othei- Lizards which do, " that two similar types occui- 

 among the Amphibia. Thus in the Salamander all the mem- 

 branous attachments of the lungs and liver seem to be precisely- 

 similar to those in the common Lacertilian type (e. g. Lacerta). 

 But in the Frog the two lungs hang freely suspended on either 

 side, as in the Teiidfe." This is cleai-ly not ti'ue of Megaloplirys 

 nasuta. But it is very nearly true of liana [luppy'i-. but not 

 quite true. 



In the latter Fi'Og in fact the pulmonary ligaments, which are 

 illustrated in the accompanying drawing (text-fig. 99, p. 349), have 

 the following disposition and attachments. I have examined three 

 examples of this species and all of them females, and the structui'e 

 of the parts in question only dilFers slightly from individual to 

 individual. By far the greater part of the i-ight lung hangs freely 

 in the body-cavity, without any attachments to neighbouring 

 visceiu or to the pai-ietes. The difterence in this particular between 

 Ratta and Megalophrys is quite striking. Towards the root of the 

 lung a ligament runs obliquely across that viscus ; it is at first 

 attached to the right lobe of the liver and runs on to the post- 

 caval vein. The arrangement in fact is so fai- exactly as in 

 Megalophrys. But in the latter the line of attachment of this 

 ligament is along the longitudinal axis of the lung, whereas in 

 Megalophrys it is more across and at light angles to this axis. 

 Otherwise, and save in the limited extent of the ligament, the two 

 agree essentially in the mode of suspension of the right king 

 within the body-cavity. The ligament cui'ves down in the same 

 way as in Megalophrys, and is connected with the suspensoi-y 

 ligament of the oviduct. The left lung shows the same relative 

 difiei'ences. In Megalophrys it has a very long line of attachment 

 to the stomach, while this is not the case with liana. In view, 

 therefore, of these differences, it is important to compare this 

 genus with its undoubted ally Pelohates. In the latter Frog the 

 ligament attached to the lung extends for more than half- 

 way down that viscus in its contracted condition, and leaches as 

 far back as the liver in its opposite attachment. Thus there is 

 no doubt the Frog which I desci-ibe here is more nearly allied in 

 this pai'ticular also to Pelohates than it is to Rana. And there ai'e 

 other likenesses between these genera in addition to those already 

 made use of by systematists. 



In the case of Rijxi and Xenopus, the anatomy of which has been 

 recently studied by myself *, and ten years later by Dr. Keith t, 

 there are muscles which attach the lungs to the jmrietes. A 

 portion of this complex " diaphragm " is also to be found in the 

 Common Frog, where it consists of a sheet of muscle, a part of the 

 transversalis which ends upon the oesophagus and the roots of the 

 lungs. This has been figured in sevei;al places, and the most recent 

 figure known to me is in the latest edition of Ecker's great work 



* Pipa in P. Z. S. 1895, p. 827, and Xenopus, ibid. p. 841. 



t " The Nature of the Mammalian Diaphragm &c.," J. Anat. Phys. xxxix. 1905, 

 p. 253. 



