2o8] 
RECORDS OF W.A. MUSEUM. 
and other Cystignathoid genera, notably Liranodynastes, so that 
only specific importance can be attached to it. In H. pictus, it bears 
a much closer resemblance to that of Philocryphus than does H . 
alhopunctaUis. Philocryphus is a much larger and stouter form than 
its western ally, and has much more powerful arms. In correlation 
with this development we find the strongly calcified sternum with 
its ventral ridge, and the downturned thickened edge of the left 
epicoracoidal cartilage ; the pectoral muscles which find attachment 
at these ridges are the largest I have observed in any Australian 
frog. 
The sternal apparatus of H. pictus (Text fig. iia) differs from 
that of H. in minor joints only. The most important 
difference is the broader sternal plate which shows no sign of ossifi- 
cation. The omosternum is expanded anteriorly and is not unlike 
that of Philocryphus, 
The two genera may be characterised as follows: — 
HELIOPORUS, Gray. 
Pupil erect. Tongue subcircular, slightly nicked behind. 
Vomerine teeth between the choanae. Tympanum concealed. 
Toes sometimes as much as half-webbed. Outer metatarsals 
united. Omosternum cartilaginous ; sternum a cartilaginous or 
semi-ossified plate, nicked behind. Sacral vertebra dilated. Ter- 
minal phalanges stout, simple. 
PHILOCRYPHUS, Fletcher. 
Pupil erect. Tongue subcircular, slightly nicked behind 
Vomerine teeth between the choanae. Tympanum quite distinct 
Toes with a thick basal w'eb. Outer metatarsals united. Omo- 
sternum cartilaginous; sternum a strongly calcified plate w’ith 
a slight median ventral ridge and two strong xyphisternal horns. 
Sacral vertebra dilated. Terminal phalanges moderate, simple. 
MYOBATRACHUS GOULDH, Gray. 
Myobatraclins govldii, Boulenger, Brit. Mns. Cat. Batr., 2nd ed., 1882, p. 329. 
,, ,, Fletcher, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., XXII, 1897 (1898), 
pp. 680 and 681. 
I have examined four specimens of this species and find that 
they differ in several points from Dr. Boulenger’s description. The 
