114 
E. E. Brown 
Plain forms, many workers would not consider Hyla andersoni to be a 
“typical” such form. 
The Fall Line, incidentally, is a convenient boundary but not 
necessarily a barrier. The 500-foot contour runs roughly along the Fall 
Line and, of course, turns inland up each river valley. Although the fact 
may not be significant, it is worth noting that this contour extends up the 
Savannah River to lower Anderson County and up the Saluda River to 
Ware Shoals, upper Greenwood County. 
I first gained some familiarity with Hyla andersoni at various points 
in the North Carolina sandhills during the late 1940s. The frog virtually 
had to be present in South Carolina. Hence, in 1950 I started looking for 
it there, and found it in mid-June just south of Patrick, Chesterfield 
County (EEB 2200-01). In early July of that year it was found in Kershaw 
County at a site that I again checked in 1951 (EEB 3124-5), 1952, 1965 
(EEB 6529-30) and, less carefully, several times since. As the populations 
appeared to be small and there was no evident protection in sight for the 
species, it simply did not seem wise to advertise these locality records. My 
few South Carolina specimens of H. andersoni will be placed in the 
Charleston Museum and the U. S. National Museum. Any worker re- 
quiring the location of the Kershaw County collecting site should contact 
the Charleston Museum, Julian R. Harrison at The College of 
Charleston, or the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources 
Department (Nongame and Endangered Species Section), Columbia. 
My limited forays did not yield the frog farther southwest along the 
sandhills strip, including the Aiken County portion of the area now con- 
trolled by the Savannah River Plant of the Atomic Energy Commission. 
Once, after a heavy night rain, I thought I heard it in Lexington County 
near US 1 on the Cayce side of the rivers opposite Columbia, but I could 
not verify this. Nor did I find the frog in, or toward, the Anderson area. 
In recent years, other workers have begun to encounter H. andersoni 
in South Carolina. With interested observers now nearer to the scene, it 
may eventually be possible to guess where the type specimen might have 
originated. Neill (1947) perhaps wisely suggested that the type locality of 
H. andersoni be considered unknown. Schmidt (1953) without comment 
designated it as the present Aiken County. 
Hoping that a different approach might yield helpful clues to answer 
the question of the type locality, I have devoted much time and effort to 
learning what I could concerning Charlotte Paine and the school at An- 
derson. I have not solved the problem of the source of the type specimen. 
The following gleanings comprise history rather than herpetology, but to 
prevent repetition of effort by other persons they should be on record. 
Some writers (Wright and Wright 1949, Neill 1947) seem to have 
mistakenly assumed that Charlotte Paine and Mrs. M. E. Daniel were 
one and the same person. Neill (1954:90) appeared to suggest that a Col. 
M. E. Daniels of Augusta may have been the husband of our Mrs. 
