880 MR. F. E. BEDUAIID OX THE [Nov. 26,, 



by its wliite colour conti-astiug Avith the suri'ounding brown in- 

 tegument. There are also scattered glands upon the thigh and 

 elsewhere ; but only this one large patch which lies on the doi'sal 

 surface near to the posterior border of the thigh. In Xenophrys 

 monticola this aggregation is 7 mm. in length and is at aliout the 

 middle of the length of the thigh. In LejAohrachAum hasseltii 

 the patch is nearer to the knee and of about the same I'elative 

 size. In both species of Megaloplirys the gland-patch is present, 

 but it would be easily overlooked if the skin were only examined 

 from the outside ; for it is considerably smaller both actually 

 and relatively than in the last two genera. It lies not far from 

 the middle of the length of the thigh. These differences of size 

 m.ay of course be sexual. I could not find any such patch in 

 Pelohates. 



§ Abdominal Viscera. 



The liver in Xenophrys differs from that of both species of 

 Megalophrys in the greater extension backwards of the larger left 

 lobe. This lobe almost conceals the junction of the stomach with 

 the duodenum. Its posterior margin is cleft into three conical 

 processes ; the left lobe is, as usual, subdivided into two lobes, of 

 which the smaller and distinctly bifid lobe is completely hidden by 

 the larger and superficial subdivision of the lobe. It is not com- 

 pletely hidden in Megalophrys nasuta^ and apparently not in 

 M. m,oiitana, though here what appears to be a fusion between 

 the two subdivisions of the left lobe somewhat masks their rela- 

 tions. The gall-bladder is not entirely concealed by the right lobe 

 of the liver in Xenophrys monticola. 



In Leptobrachitmn hasseltii the liver is a little different from 

 that of Xenophrys monticola. In the first place it does not extend 

 nearly so far back over the stomach, and is thus more like Mega- 

 lophrys. It also differs greatly from the liver of Xenophrys in 

 the approximately equal points to -which the two lobes extend 

 posteriorly ; this seems to be largely due to the greater size (as 

 compared wdth other genera) of the right lobe which completely 

 covers and conceals the gall-bladder. Furthermore, the two sub- 

 divisions of the (largei') left lobe barely overlap and the lower lobe 

 is thus practically fully exposed. This is an exaggeration of what 

 is met with in Megalojyhrys nasuta. 



The jj»(xncrerts of Xenophrys monticola agrees pretty closely with 

 that of Leptobrachiimi and of Megalophrys as recently described by 

 myself*. I should mention that in these genera a slender branch 

 of the pancreas lies in the fold of mesentery which connects the 

 stomach and duodenum. In neither Xenophrys nor Leptobrachium 

 could I detect any marked division between the stomach and 

 duodenum, such as is found in Megalophrys nasuta. 



* P. Z. S. 1907, p. 319. 



