194 crsTiaNATHiB^. 



subarticiilar tubercles small ; two small metatarsal tubercles. The 

 bind limb being carried forwards along the body, the tibio-tarsal 

 articulation reaches in front of the eye. Skin smooth, slightly 

 tubercular on the sides, Brown above, spotted with darker ; hinder 

 side of thighs marbled; limbs cross-barred; lower surfaces dirty 

 ■white, the belly marbled with greyish. 

 Brazil. 



tJ. 2 . S. America. 



2. Elosia bufonia. 



Elosia bufonium, Girard, Proc. Ac. Philad.yi. 1853, p. 423, and U.S. 

 Kvpl. Exp., Herp. p. 66, pi. 4. f. 23-27. 



Differs from E. nasus chiefly in the shorter hind limbs, the tarso-. 

 metatarsal articulation not extending beyond the tip of the snout. 

 Eio Janeiro. 



3. Elosia vomer ina. 



Elosia vomerina, Oirard, Proc. Ac. Philad. vi. 1853, p. 423, arid U.8, 

 Expl. Exped. Sap., p. 60, pi. 4. f. 17-22. 



Tongue subcircular, discoid, broadly emarginated posteriorly. 

 Vomerine teeth in a transverse and rectilinear series immediately in 

 advance of the anterior margin of the choanse. Nostril a little 

 nearer the tip of the snout than the eye. Tympanum proportionally 

 larger than in the two preceding species. Inner metatarsal tubercle 

 resembling a rudimentary toe. If the hind limb is carried forwards 

 along the body, the middle of the tarsus reaches the tip of the snout. 

 Skin perfectly smooth. 



Eio Janeiro. 



8. PHYLLOBATES*. 



rhyllobates, D%m. Sr Bihr. viii. p. 637 ; Giinth. Cat. p. 90 ; Cope, 

 Nat. HiBt. Pev. 1865, p. 112, and Journ. Ac. PMlad. (2) vi. 1866, 

 p. 96. 



» 1. Fhyllohates glandulosm, (Ktz.) Steindachn. Novara. Amph. id 53 -nl 3 

 f. 1-4.— Brazil. ' ^ ^ ' i- 



2. Fhyllobatesperuenm, Steindachn. 1. c. p. 53, pi. 4. f. 8-11. — ^Peru. (Perhaps 

 ■a, Hylodes.) 



3. Fhyllobates eleffans.—Dr. Giinthei- has mentioned (Proo. Zool. Soo. 1868, 

 p. 479), but not described, under this name a Fhyllobates of which but one spe- 

 cimen—from Bogota — is in the coDection. He thought this species might be 

 the same as Livperus elegans, Peters, Men. Bed. Ac. 1863, p. 447 ; but from the 

 original description of Prof. Peters, and from a subsequent note (eod. loo. 1869, 

 p. 879), I am conTinced that the specimen in the British Museum is altogether 

 different from Lmperus elegans, which probably belongs to the genus Paludkola, 

 as defined in the present Catalogue. I have not been able to refer this Fhyllo- 

 bates to any of the species described. ButI think it more in-udent to put it 

 aside than establish a species upon insufficient material in a genus of which I 

 have no direct knowledge. 



