872 MR. F. E. BEDDARD ON THE [Nov. 26^ 



seem to me to render desirable a revision of the anatomical 

 chai'acters of these various genera and species of Pelobatidse. 

 At present it would almost appear that Megalophrys nasuta is 

 more different from Megalophrys montana than the latter is from 

 either Xenophrys or Leptohrachiimi. The external resemblance 

 too between the last three — particularly between Megalophrys 

 tnontana and Xenophrys monticola — are quite as striking as the 

 difierences which all of them show to Megalophrys nasuta. 



(2) Some ISTotes upon the Anatomy of 

 Megalophrys M0NTJ^L4. 



So far as I am aware, our knowledge of the structure of this 

 frog is at present confined to the external chai'acters, to such 

 osteological characters as have been used for classificatory purposes 

 by Cope and Boulenger, and to the sternum, which has been 

 figured and described by Prof. Parker*. Quite recently the 

 tadpole has been reported upon by Mr. Laidlaw t, who quotes an 

 account by Prof. Max Weber. The tadpole, with its curious 

 funnel-shaped hood, has been figured by Dr. Gadow J. As to the 

 adult frog, I have been able to compare its structure with 

 its congener (or, I perhaps ought to say, alleged congener) 

 Megalophrys Qiasuta, on the anatomy of which I have lately 

 contributed an account to this Society §. 



The specimen upon which I report hei-e was kindly placed in 

 my hands by Sir E. E,ay Lankester from the stores of the Natural 

 History Museum. It shows in most respects the characters of 

 the species as given by Mr. Boulenger in his ' Catalogue of the 

 Batrachia Salientia' |l. 1 find, however, one rather important 

 difference. Mr. Boulenger uses the phrase "tympanum hidden" 

 as part of his generic definition of Megalophrys. This undoubtedly 

 applies to 31. nasitta^, as I have been able to ascertain for 

 myself. Subsequently ** Mr. Boulenger himself found a distinct 

 tympanum in M. longipes. I have now to record that the tym- 

 panum is distinctly visible in M. montana, where, however, it is 

 decidedly more obvious when the animal is dry. It is 4 mm. in 

 diameter and is distant fi'om the eye twice its own diameter. 



Another rather salient difference between the two species which 

 is hardly apparent from Mr. Boulenger's definition, concerns the 

 tubercles of the body. I have no doubt that these may offer 

 differences from individual to individual in Megalophrys montana ; 

 but, as I have already pointed out, there are some reasons for 

 believing that these tubercles do not differ much in different 

 specimens of Megalophrys nasuta : so that, in any case, they can 



* ' Monograph of the Slioulder-girdle,' Ray Societ}', 1869. 

 t " The Frogs of the ' Skeat ' Expedition," P. Z. S. 1900, p. 890. 

 X ' Cambridge Natural Historj-,' Reptiles and Amphibians, p. 60. 

 § P. Z. S. 1907, p. 324. II i*. 442. 



^ I have carefull}' re-examined mj' specimen and find the barest indication of the 

 tympanum. 



** P. Z. S. 1885, p. 850. 



