84 RANAPIPIENS. 



the errors of Linnaeus, and adds another reference to Seba, whose animal is not 

 even the real ocellata, which is found on the seventy-fifth, and not on the seventy- 

 sixth table, as he supposes. 



The specific name, pipiens, was not applied by Linnseus to any frog, but was 

 first used by Gmelin, so far as I know, and given to a very different animal, the 

 Water frog of Catesby, the common Shad frog, which had previously been called 

 Rana halecina; and this leaves the name pipiens unapplied, at least so far as 

 Gmelin is concerned. 



It is next used by Schneider in his Historia Amphibiorum; his whole description, 

 however, refers to the halecina of Kalm, or the Water frog of Catesby. 



Latreille is the first who used the specific name pipiens without synonymes, or 

 reference to any author, stating only that his animal was called, in Carolina, the 

 Bull frog; his description is correct, and apphcable to the Bull frog in every 

 particular but one: he speaks of a light coloured vertebral line, which I have 

 never seen in any individual of this species. 



Latreille separates it from the Rana ocellata, which he describes as a distinct 

 animal, and says, furthermore, that his Rana pipiens must not be mistaken for 

 that of Schneider (Gmelin), which we have seen is the Rana halecina of Kalm; 

 consequently then to Latreille is due the merit of first definitely applying the specific 

 name pipiens to our Bull frog. It is singular that Daudin should not have followed 

 his example, but far from it; he, under his Rana pipiens, gives three animals 

 entirely distinct from each other, and his plate makes a fourth, for it represents 

 an Indian animal, and not the American Bull frog. 



N. B. Though Gmelin quotes Schneider, he does not quote the name he gives 

 the animal. 



