No. 632] SHORTEB ARTICLES AND DISCUSSION 287 



Hyla punctata of Beebe's list is probably Hyla Helena Ruth- 

 ven, described from BritisH Guiana and evidently entirely un- 

 known to Beebe. 



Hyla fasciata here definitely recorded from British Guiana 

 although not captured (no asterisk), hence the record is prob- 

 ably copied from Boulenger's Catalogue, where there is a large 

 question mark which is here omitted. 



Hyla lineomaculata Werner is yet to be proved distinct from 

 Hyla rubra. 



The CeratopHrys cornuta starred as having actually been taken 

 would indeed have been a prize had it fallen into appreciative 

 hands. For the finding of this species so far from home would 

 be worth most painstaking verification. Has Mr. Beebe saved the 

 specimen? It is not in the American Museum in New York, 

 whose reptile series suffers sadly through Beebe's scorn of the 

 collector. 



Specimens must be seen before the records of Leptodactylus 

 J-ni'th-nstris Boulenger (type locality Santarem), Leptodact ylus 

 ocellatus (Linne), widespread in the southern South American 

 grasslands and Leptodactylus gaudicHaudii can be considered. 



Suddenly using capitals for specific names, perhaps in a burst 

 of enthusiasm at the shock which he knows the "closet natural- 

 ist" will suffer, we read that he has found Otophryne "Ro- 

 busta" at Bartica, so also Atelopus "Proboscideus," Atelopus 

 varius and Atelopus pulcher. In the same category of most 

 highly improbable records, among others, we find Anolis ortowU 

 of the Peruvian montana and Anolis sagrei a native of Cuba and 

 the Bahamas. Ameiva surinamensis is referred to in an adjoin- 

 ing paper correctly as Ameiva ameiva, we wonder if they are 

 considered the same species. Prionodactylus we had always sup- 

 posed to be a characteristically Andean genus yet here the Equa- 

 dorian oshaughnessyi appears as actually occurring at Bartica! 

 CopHias should appear as Bachia but Beebe would probably con- 

 sider this as "in the special province of the literary systematist" 

 or is this simply a case of where Mr. Tee- Van, in his "untiring 

 search" of the literature, got too tired before the pertinent ref- 

 erence was found? The boas' names are rather confused as we 

 use them now — another purely literary matter, however. The 

 nomenclature of the snakes in general is a mixture of earlier 

 usage with the acceptance of such a radical concession to neces- 

 sity as the use of Micrurus for Elaps, while in many other cases 



