though 

 Of the E 



of the British Museum Catalogue. 201 



separated collections of crypts over the dorsal region, and are 

 hence placed in different families by Giinther. ISchismaderma 

 of South Africa is a true Bufo without parotoids, and Paludi- 

 cola another member of the true Bufonidae differs from Bufo 

 in this respect, as Bombinator does from Alytes. Calamita, a 

 genus of Hylidae from the Australian region embraces two 

 species, C. cyanea Daud. and C. dolichopsis Cope. Tlie first of 

 these has a large glandular mass on the scapular nn.l even 

 cranial regions (and as such the type of a pei.'uli;i! ;;: . 

 Gunther, his Pelodryadidae) while the second lia> l 

 enlargements whatever ; yet Gunther (Zoological \l 

 states that they are mere varieties of one species. 



To go over all the families in detail, would be uiim'(es.-«arv. 

 as published works have already corrected them. SulUce it to 

 say, that of the fifteen into which the non-tree-frogs are divided, 

 but eight appear by their names to represent natural families, 

 though in character not one of them has a good foundation, 

 ^e into which the tree-frogs are divided, but twu coin- 

 extent with modern families, and none in eliai;u tris. 

 One of the latter embraces but one genus, and is calkd ilu' ////- 

 lapksiidce, though as Peters has shown by autopsy, the I/ijia- 

 plesia of Boie is a Bufonid, probably a true Bufo. The uuuiber 

 of families and subfamilies which might have been constructed 

 on such bases as the above, on genera discovered since the 

 publication of this catalogue, would be considerable, but natu- 

 rahsts have, with one exception* not availed themselves of the 

 privilege. 



If we examine the genera of this system the extent of the 

 work of reformation already marked out, becomes more appar- 

 ent Thus in his Ranidse, of thirteen genera, but five belong 

 with Rana, and one of these, Heteroglossa, would be a Polype- 

 datid according to Giinther's system. Another, Stenorhynchus 

 nataknsis Smith, was subsequently redescribed as the type of a 

 new genus and species {Phrynobatrachus Kataknsis) by the direc- 

 tor, although genericallv undistinguishable from another genus 

 of the same author, Dicroglossus. The CystignatfiidxB con!;^ 

 nothing but members of that family, or rather relations ot ' 

 tignathus, but is a mere fragment compared with the c.-: 

 that really belong to it. The greater part of all the remai. 

 families of tooth-bearing series belong to it, whether tret- ir ^ 

 or not. The genus Pltctromantis Peters, with small digital en- 

 largements on the finoers only, should be placed here, as it is 

 very near to, if at all distinct from the type genus Cysi>gnatfius. 

 The great extent of this family is paraUeled by other Neotropi- 

 cal forms, as the FcyrmicarvdcE, the Tyramiid^s, Characmidcx, 

 Chromididce,, etc. 



* Miyart, Proc. ZooL Soa London. 1869, 280. The writer in one or two inatan- 



