MACLEAY’S NEW GUINEA AND QUEENSLAND FLOG TYPES.— FRY. 
47 
under later names. The same may be said of a detailed redescription of the 
types which, as they have deteriorated considerably, might easily be misleading. 
The main points of accord then, and especially any in which there occurs a 
divergence from their well-described synonyms, have alone been mentioned. 
The five species are dealt with separately as below. 
1- RANA8TER CONVEXIUSCULUS, Macleay. 
Macleay, Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales, ii., 1878, p. 135. Type locality: Katow, British New 
Guinea. 
Boulenger, Brit. Mus. Cat. Batr., 1882, p. 444. 
van Kampen, Nova Guinea, ix., 1909, p. 36, pi. ii., fig. 4 ( Phanerotis novce-guinece ) . Type locality : 
Merauke, Dutch New Guinea. 
The type specimen of this frog is in very fair condition, and shows that 
the species is identical with Dr. P. N. van Kampen ’s later described species, 
Phanerotis novce-guinecu. Macleay placed his genus in the family Discoglossid® 
as defined by Dr. Gunther.* This has probably been the real cause to which the 
obscurity of the frog's identity is due, for all authors have followed him. In 
reducing the many families of Batrachia Salientia admitted in the first edition 
of the British Museum Catalogue, Boulenger transferred a section of Dr. Gun- 
ther’s family Discoglossida? to the Pelobatida?, and with it went, not without 
doubt. Remaster convexiiisciilus . In the absence of any further material of 
which the identity was recognised, subsequent authors have concurred with him, 
and Panaster has come to be regarded as rightly belonging to that family. 
In describing Phanerotis novec-guinetr, however, van Kampen records it as the 
first Cystignathid frog from New Guinea. Dr. Boulenger founded the genus 
Phanerotis f for an undoubted Cystignathid frog from New South Wales, but 
considerable doubt exists as to whether P. novcr-guinece is really congeneric. 
However, this hardly affects the present question, for although Dr. van Kampen 
does not describe the sternal apparatus and sacral vertebra of his species, he has 
presumably examined the internal characters in coming to his conclusion as to 
its family relationships, and, as it is identical with Macleay ’s species, we must 
apparently accept Ranastcr convexiusculus as a member of the family Cystig- 
nathicln. I cannot dissect Macleay’s type, but from an examination of the 
externals I feel convinced that this course will ultimately prove correct. 
It seems best to regard the few external differences which occur between 
P. fletcheri and P. nova: -guinea as of generic value. These are the ranoicl habit 
and the distinct tympanum of the former. If we do not accept this separation 
we must admit a remarkable instance of discontinuous distribution, or con- 
vergence. The almost total absence of Cystignathid® in New Guinea is a matter 
of surprise, for we must account for their presence in Australia as we do the 
ITylida?, which family has freely entered Papuasia and found it favourable to 
* Gunther, Cat. Batr. Brit. Mus., 1858, 1st ed., p. 34. 
t Boulenger, Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales (2), v., 1891, p. 593. 
