878 MR. F. E. BEDDARD ON THE [Nov. 26, 



(3) On Xenophrys and Leptobbachium. 



Of these two genera I have examined, as akeady mentioned, 

 the species Xenophrys monticola and Leptohrachivin hasseltii. The 

 external characters of both are described in some detail by 

 Mr. Boulenger in his ' Catalogue,' and later in the ' Fauna of 

 British India,' 1891, and I have identified upon my specimens 

 every characteristic mentioned by him. There are, however, a 

 few — ^very few — minutise with which he does not deal. As already 

 mentioned, the external resemblances between Megcdophrys mon- 

 tana and Xenophrys 'monticola are very close. The interorbital 

 region is, however, distinctly more concave in the Megcdophrys 

 than in the representatives of the two other genera. Mr. Boulenger 

 has remarked the large triangular mark between the eyes (which 

 does not exist in Leptohrachkmn hasseltii) in Megalophrys montana 

 and Xenophrys monticola. I may add that this has a straight 

 anterior margin in the latter species, but is deeply concave in 

 Megalop)hrys. The " V-shaped linear raised fold on the nape" is 

 very plain in Xenophrys monticola ; but that species has also — and 

 Mr. Boulenger* does not mention this — on each side a lateral 

 longitudinal fold, exactly as in Megalophrys montana. In the 

 latter species the equivalent of the V-shaped glandular fold is 

 accurately transverse t. But there is in these folds a close likeness 

 between the two species referred to, and they are totally absent in 

 Leptohracliiimn hasseltii. I have observed another minute feature 

 in which my species of Megalophrys and Xenophrys agree to differ 

 from the species of Leptobrachium which I have studied : in the 

 last-mentioned frog the gape of the mouth only just reaches the 

 anterior margin of the tympanum ; in the other two it extends 

 rather beyond this point. The example of Xenophrys mo7iticola 

 which I have examined and described does not, it would appear, 

 quite agree with those examined by Boulenger at the time when 

 he drew up his ' Catalogue.' He writes under the generic defini- 

 tion of Xenophrys: "Tympanum scai-cely distinct," and again, 

 under the specific description of Xeiiophrys monticola : " tym- 

 panum slightly distinct, vertically oval, about two thirds the width 

 of the eye." In my example the tympanum was particularly 

 distinct owing to its enclosure within a very strongly marked 

 raised rim continuous above with the fold leading from the eye to 

 the shoulder. Another feature of likeness between Megalojyhrys 

 'montana and Xenophrys monticola is in the metatarsal tubercle. 

 Boulenger correctly states of both species that this tubercle is 

 indistinct. This statement may be amplified by noting the addi- 

 tional fact that the metatarsal tubercle has the same elongate 

 oval form and comparatively large size in both of these frogs, 

 which is very difter"ent from the small and prominent and nearly 

 round tubercle of Le23tobrachiu,in hasseltii. 



An external character to which but little attention has been 



* Dr. Anderson (P. Z. S. 1871, p. 201) appears to have noticed it. 



t It is, however, V-shaped in Megalophrys longipes (P. Z. S. 1885, p. 850). 



