﻿classification. 
  5 
  

  

  4. 
  Bruch, 
  1863. 
  

  

  J 
  

  

  Pnpil 
  

  

  rPelobates. 
  

  

  ,,.,^ 
  T>7t^-7 
  Bomb 
  inator. 
  

  

  r 
  vertical 
  : 
  Orthoglena 
  . 
  . 
  . 
  Pelohatides-^ 
  p^iQ^y^^g 
  

  

  yAlytes. 
  

   (Hy 
  hides 
  . 
  Hyla. 
  

   ^round 
  or 
  horizontal 
  : 
  Plagioglena 
  j 
  -BatioicZes 
  . 
  Bana. 
  

  

  \ 
  Bufonides 
  . 
  Bufo. 
  

  

  This 
  arrangement 
  is 
  merely 
  the 
  application 
  of 
  the 
  

   views 
  expressed 
  by 
  Thomas 
  in 
  1854. 
  

  

  5. 
  Cope, 
  1865. 
  

  

  Aglossa. 
  

  

  BuFONiFOEMiA 
  ..... 
  Bufonidse 
  . 
  Bufo. 
  

  

  I( 
  Discoglossus. 
  

   Discoglossidse 
  "( 
  Alytes. 
  

   IBomhinator. 
  

   Scaphiopodidse 
  [pfj^ytes- 
  

   Hylidse 
  . 
  . 
  Hyla. 
  

   Raniformia 
  Banidse 
  . 
  . 
  Bana. 
  

  

  The 
  Bufoniformia 
  correspond 
  to 
  tlie 
  Bufoniformes 
  

   of 
  Dumeril 
  and 
  Bibron; 
  the 
  Arcifera 
  are 
  separated 
  

   from 
  the 
  Baniformia, 
  which 
  agree 
  in 
  the 
  presence 
  of 
  

   teeth, 
  by 
  tlie 
  structure 
  of 
  the 
  pectoral 
  arch 
  ; 
  and 
  tbe 
  

   Discoglossidde 
  are 
  defined 
  for' 
  the 
  first 
  time 
  by 
  the 
  

   opisthocoelous 
  vertebrae 
  provided 
  with 
  autogenous 
  

   ribs. 
  Some 
  further 
  improvements 
  were 
  introduced 
  in 
  

   1867, 
  when 
  tbe 
  Bufoniforwda 
  were 
  split 
  into 
  two 
  

   groups, 
  based 
  on 
  the 
  structure 
  of 
  the 
  pectoral 
  arch, 
  

   that 
  group 
  corresponding 
  to 
  the 
  Baniformia 
  among 
  

   the 
  toothed 
  forms, 
  being 
  named 
  Firmisternia, 
  a 
  term 
  

   the 
  signification 
  of 
  which 
  I 
  have 
  extended 
  to 
  embrace 
  

   all 
  non-arciferous 
  forms, 
  whether 
  toothed 
  or 
  not 
  — 
  an 
  

   improvement 
  since 
  accepted 
  by 
  Cope 
  himself. 
  

  

  6. 
  MiVART, 
  1869, 
  in 
  one 
  of 
  his 
  classical 
  papers 
  pub- 
  

   lished 
  by 
  the 
  Zoological 
  Society 
  of 
  London, 
  endea- 
  

   voured 
  to 
  combine 
  Giinther's 
  and 
  Cope's 
  classifications, 
  

   but 
  his 
  arrangement 
  does 
  not 
  differ 
  materially 
  from 
  

  

  