of the British 3fuseum Catalogue. 199 



In the first place the order Anura is divided into three sub- 

 orders, the Aglossa without tongue, the Opisthoglossa with 

 tongue free behind, and the Proteroglossa, with the tongue tree 

 in front. The first group is natural liaving been already 

 established by Wagler and Lumeril : while the value ..f the 

 character used to distinguish between tlic two last is in-t ni(-)re 

 than generic at most Several genera possess the [H-cnlim-ity of 

 the "Proteroglossa," which in this system are i>laee<l among the 

 Opisthoglossa, while the general affinities of the genus llhmo- 

 plirynus, the only one of this supposed suborder, arc clearly 

 sliown by its structure to be those of the family Bufonidoe or the 

 toads, on a very slight examination. 



The division of Aglossa is supposed by our author to be rej 

 esented by two series, Haplosiphona and Diplosiphona, the fin 

 including the previously known representatives of the onlo 



the last, the genus Myohairachus Schlegel. Now this last, _ 

 proved by examination of the type specimen at Leyden m 1808, 

 is a dried example of Chelydohatrachus Gouldii ; ^Xi Australian 

 Bufonid, with the tongue shrunken away by drymg.* 



if we now turn to his primary division Opistlwgbssa, its 

 principal groups are based on one of the most subordinate char- 

 acters in the order, viz : the Oxydaciyla and Phtydadyla, on 

 the presence and absence of the digital dilatations on the ends 

 of the last phalanges; in other words, tree and terrestrial 

 frogs. As all subsequent writers have repudiated these groups, 

 I will pass them with the remark, that the author's reasons for 

 estabUshing them,— that the characters are so important m the 

 life history of the species— are abundantly sufficient for suspect- 

 ing their Value. 



The further subdivision of these groups is based on a variety 

 of characters, some of importance, having been introduced by 

 Muller and Gray, and others newly introduced of very little 

 value. The manner in which they are used is remarkable, and 

 contrary to what would be expected from an examination ot 

 the relations of other animals. That is, the characters are 

 treated as of equal importance in all cases, producing a kind oi 

 dichotomous system, each group being equal and similar to 

 others, and presenting none of that successional relation which 

 ^e know so well characterizes nature's groups. Ihe unta- 

 yorable impression is strengthened by a further examination 

 ^nto the structure, and the system is ^und to be little better 

 than if it had been based, dictionaiy-fashion, on the first letters 

 of their names. , ^ ^ 



If we mix thoroughly Gunther's groups of tree-frogs and 

 not tree-frogs, as the subdividing characters used by him are the 

 same in each, a criticism of the latter will cover both. 



* Thi« error is perhaps not due to the author of the catalogue, as he has seeu no 



