906 MK. F. E. BEDDARD ON THE [NoV. 26, 



of the vei'tebral centi'a has been shown to vary in one in- 

 dividual of Xenophrys montieola by Boulenger, and in other 

 forms by others. If the three characters just shortly dealt 

 with are disallowed as of classificatory value, I do not see how 

 we are to escape from the inclusion in one genus not only of 

 the Oriental, and doubtless closely allied, forms now named 

 Megalophrys, Xenophrys, and Leptohrackium, but also of Felo- 

 hates and Pelodytes. Sccqyhiopus alone (of the genera that are 

 tolerably well known) would escape this simplification in nomen- 

 clature. For the internal characters are not very decisive as 

 evidence of generic delimitations. In one or two points, for 

 example, Xenophrys stands rather alone, or is much nearer to 

 Pelohates than to its more obviously related allies Megaloplirys 

 and LeptobracMum. Elsew^here LeptohracMum comes nearer to 

 Megalop)lirys nasuta than to Xenophrys. If we were to arrange 

 the different forms considered in the present communication by 

 the mode of suspension of the lungs, LeptobracMum and Megalo- 

 phrys moniana would be placed together and contrasted with 

 Megalophrys nasuta and Xenophrys. And other instances of 

 cross-resemblance will be found to occur in the descriptions given 

 hi the preceding pages. These differences, however, though appa- 

 rently unreliable as generic distinctions on accomit of their — so 

 to speak — capriciotisness of occurrence, are, taken in conjunction 

 with the external and osteological characters already known, 

 of sufficient importance in my miud to divide the Pelobatidse 

 considered in this paper into a number of genera. And I am dis- 

 tinctly of opinion, as far as the facts allow me to judge, that 

 Xenophrys must be reinstated and a new genus formed for 

 Megaloplirys nasuta. On the other hand, it must be borne in 

 mind that these Oriental Pelobatidfe which I distribute among 

 four genera have certain points in common which distinguish 

 them "all and equally from Pe/oS«ies. These points are: (1) the 

 general form of the larynx with its separate ciicoids — a peisistent 

 embryonic condition as I imagine ; (2) the more or less rudimen- 

 tary condition of the metatarsal tubercle ; (3) the less completely 

 webbed hind toes ; (4) the presence upon the thighs of a gland- 

 patch ; (5) the complete absence of the anterior hyoidean cornua. 



Do these outweigh the osteological and other differences which 

 have led to the separation of the Oriental forms into several 

 o-enera ? I am inclined to think not ; for they appear to me to be 

 less important even than characters which, if used for that pur- 

 pose, would relegate Pelohates to the same genus as Xenophrys or 

 Pelohatradnis. This view, however, which is in any case a matter 

 of opinion, may be strengthened or weakened by the future col- 

 lecting of fact. 



The following table indicates the various points of anatomical 

 likeness and unlikeness among the Oriental Pelobatidre considered 

 in the foregoing pages : — 



