AMPHIBIA. 
25 
AMPHIBIA. 
The Amphibia are very poorly represented in Dr. Stoliczka’s collections. Only four 
pecies are represented, and only one was procured from Eastern Turkestan ; all are well 
tto’tvn forms of Batrachia. No examples of Erodela were met with. 
Order BATRACHIA. 
Family — UANID2E. 
1. RAN A CYANOPHLYCTIS. 
Schneider apud Gunther : Repfc. Brit. Ind., p. 406; — Stoliczka: Jour. As. Soc. Bengal, 1870, xxxix, 
Pt. 2, p. 146; Proc. As. Soc. Bengal, 1872, pp. 85, 102,130;— W. Blanf. : Jour. As. Soe. Bengal! 
xxxix, Pt. 2, p. 374; Eastern Persia, ii, p. 433. 
1 — 3, between Mari and Kashmir. 
species had previously been recorded by Dr. Stoliczka from Mari. It is common 
pa'^Tyhout the peninsula of India, and is the only abundant frog in the dry western 
1 s of the country, Kachh (Cutch), Sind, &c., extending to the west into Baluchistan. 
2. DlPLOPELMA CARNATIC TJ M . 
Engy stoma carnaticum, Jerdon: Jour. As. Soe. Bengal, 1853, xxii, p. 534. 
Mphpelma carnaticum, Jerdon: Proc. As. Soc. Bengal, 1870, p. 85 ;— Stoliczka : Jour. As. Soc. Bengal, 
1870, xxxix, p. 154; Proc. As. Soc. Bengal, 1872, p. 110. 
■ ? D. ornatum, Dum. Bib., apud Gunther: Kept. Brit. India, p. 417; see also Proc. Zool. Soc., 1875, 
p. 568. 
1, Tinali, on the road from Mari to Kashmir. 
b 0 j^'! lC S ^ n 8'l e specimen obtained agrees very well with specimens in the Indian Museum 
aw, e Peninsula India and Burma. No representative of the genus had, so far as I am 
S . een Previously met with so far to the north-west, 
hs no t without some hesitation that I retain the name D. carnaticum for this species, 
at ] ( , tether has recently repeated his opinion that both Engy stoma carnaticum (in part 
hlcnC S i ai1 .^ ru ^ rum °i' J erdon, or rather specimens identified as such by J erdon, are 
E, c lCa E- ornatum of Dumeril and Bibron, but Dr. Jerdon has pointed out that 
^^y! l - Cl ^ Gum d° es n °t a 8 Tee with Dumeril and Bibron’s description, whilst the form 
that f ^t a l a har, whence the type of E. ornatum was obtained, is probably distinct from 
E. Central and Northern India. I must say that I feel much doubt as to whether 
by ^ n °ticum is the species described by Dumeril and Bibron, the colouration described 
With it 86 au ^ ors differing greatly from that of the present form, so far as I am acquainted 
