206] 
RECORDS OF IV. A. MUSEUM. 
wliich is a direct downward contiimation of the upper eye-lid, 
would function as a valve to prevent the small particles of grit from 
entering the eye during the frog’s passage through the earth. In 
PMlocyylhns flavogutfatus (Text-fig. 8a) an homologous structure 
occurs, but differs from that of H. albopunctatus (Text-fig. 8b) in 
being larger and semi-circular in outline, with several nicks on its 
free edge. It is also to be regarded as of an accessory nature as it 
is not a direct continuation of the upper eyelid, but quite separate 
from that structure. Helioporns pictus and Limnodynastes dorsalis, 
which are both borrowers, possess no such apparatus, but in the 
former, the anterior free edge of the upper eye-lid overlaps the 
lower to an unusual extent, and apparently serves the same pur- 
pose. In Pomatops valvifera, a New Guinea representative of the 
Family Engystomatidae Dr. Barbour ‘ records an interesting 
development of this nature. The upper eye-lid is in the form of a 
flap of skin which extends for some distance anterior and posterior 
to the eye, and which is sufficiently developed to allow of its laying 
down so that it covers the whole eye. By analogy Dr. Barbour 
regards this frog as a borrower. 
The two specimens in Mr. Woodward’s collection are from the 
Margaret River. They are the hosts of a great number of the 
maggot larvae of some Dipterous insect, probably Batrachomyia.^ 
Each of these maggots causes a gall-like swelling of considerable 
size and a frog so infested presents a remarkable sight. 
Mr. Fletcher ® has suggested that “if the generic definition 
of Heleioporus be amended in respect to the tympanum” his genus 
Philocryphus might be regarded as synonymous with it. He also 
notes the very different form of the sternum but apparently did not 
value it as a generic character. The widely different nature of the 
sterna of these tw'O species (Text-Figs, ga and loa) seems to me to 
justify their generic separation, and with such a tangible external 
character as a distinct tympanum, as opposed to a hidden one in 
Helioporns, Mr. Fletcher’s genus appears to be very well founded. 
The chief differences in the sternal apparatus lie in the sternal plate 
itself. In Philocryphus (Text Fig. ga) it is a densely calcified plate 
with a slight median ventral ridge ; it is produced backwards into 
two cylindrical, diverging, bony horns nearly as long as the sternal 
1 Barbour — Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash,, XXIII, igio, p. 89, pi. i. 
2 Skuse — Proc. Linn. Soc., N.S.W. (2), IV, p. 172. 
® Fletcher — Proc. Linn. Soc., N.S.W., XXII,, 1897 (iSgS), p. 678. 
