478 DE. W. G. KIDEWOOD OlST THE LAKYAL HYOBRANCHIAL 



yet the deduction is unsatisfactorj and inconclusive. Tliat the 

 single copula of the Eanid type of skeleton is the exact, or 

 partial, equivalent of the posterior copula of the Discoglossid 

 type is, I think, beyond question, in view of its close proximity to 

 the pai's reuniens, which latter is certainly homologous in the 

 two cases. 



The single copula of the E-anid type has been called the 

 "basibyal " by Duges (3) and the "basihyoid" by Schulze (14)*, 

 while Parker (8) chose to name it the " basibranchial." But then 

 Parker's nomenclature was seriously influenced by his regarding 

 the pars reuniens as an essential constituent of the hyobranchial 

 skeleton and his calling it, in consequence, the " basihyal " f. 



The second basibranchial which Parker has described in 

 Galyptocephalus and Oyclorhamphus cannot be allowed to carry 

 much weight in the discussion. It is probably to be explained 

 as an exceptional duplication of the single copula, if not as an 

 error of observation, or as an accidental tearing of the cartilage 

 in the dissection of the specimen (see p. 482). 



Special Part, 



Eaistid^. 



The structure of the hyobranchial skeleton of the early larva 

 of Bana has recently been so ably investigated by Gaupp (4), 

 that I abstain from a full description of the parts. A figure is 

 here given (fig. 2), not in order to illustrate any new features, 

 but for the convenience of the reader of the following notes on 

 those genera which are not figured but are compared as regards 

 the structure of their larval hyobranchial skeleton with the 

 common frog. The tlioroughness of Gaupp's paper renders au 

 historical summary also unnecessary, the earlier figures by Cuvier 

 (2), Saint-Ange (13), Eathke (9), Eeichert (10), Parker (7 & 8), 

 Stohr (15), and Naue (6) being criticised and effectually disposed 

 of in this work. The only point on which I venture to differ 



* Schulze does not include the pars reuniens in his " basihyoid " as Gaupp 

 leads one to infer (4. p. 412). He calls it " eine querfaserige Bandmasse " 

 (14. p. 9), corresponding with the " basihyal " of Parker, and he figures it quite 

 distinct from his cartilaginous "basihyoid " (14. Taf. 1. fig. 5). 



t The exceptional chondrification of the pars reuniens in Microhyla 

 (p. 481) does not, in my opinion, entitle it to rank as a morphological unit in 

 the larval hyobranchial skeleton, any more than a sesamoid chondrification in a 

 tendon is to be considered as a morphological constituent of the limb-skeleton. 



