182 
G. J. FEJÉR VÁR Y 
kes tan. This highly interesting form since passed into oblivion, 
being only recorded by Méhely (op. cit.), who pointed to the opinion of 
this Batrachian being identical with B. arvalis Nilss. Regarding this circum¬ 
stance Méhely is right inasmuch as Bedriaga’s var. asiatica is not, as 
Mr. de Bedriaga believed, a variety of R. fusca (= temporaria), but of 
B. arvalis Nilss. An identification with the typical form would nevertheless 
be thoroughly wrong, being already conspicuous from the fact that Dr. 
de Bedriaga would surely not have established a new form ranged 
by him in an other species — B. fusca Bös. — if the respective 
specimens would have truly agreed with the typical B. arvalis. It 
was just the most aberrant coloration of the dorsal surfaces 
and the belly, as Well as the snout, broadly rounded in some specimens, 
which confused Mr. de Bedriaga to such a degree as to range his new 
variety with B . fusca. Mr. Méhely seems to have examined de Bedriaga’s 
text and figures in a most superficial way, as, in the opposite case, he would 
not have stated the hind limbs as being too long for B. fusca ; precisely in 
this latter character often no important difference is set 
forth between Bana fusca Bös. and the typical B. arvalis Nilss., 
as he would have had sufficient occasion to state in the most ty¬ 
pical individuals of B. arvalis Nilss. collected by Mr. E. Csíki, 
the zoologist of Count Zichy’s III d Asiatic Expedition. In this respect var. 
asiatica agrees with B. arvalis Nilss. s. str. as well as with a large series 
of Bana fusca Bös., in which the tibio-tarsal articulation does not 
r eac h less far than in the former ; the length of tibia, compared to the 
length from snout to vent, is also, in many cases, equal in B. fusca and 
the typical B. arvalis , differing hereby a good deal from B. arvalis 
var. Wolterstorffi Fejérv., mixed up by Méhely with the typical form. 
A further reason for which de Bedriaga confounded his variety with 
B. fusca lies in the phenomenon of the gular region being «schwach grau 
angeflogen oder zeigt eine : durchschimmernde rauchgraue Zeichnung ($)». 
This circumstance was also overlooked by Méhely, who — just contrarily 
to Bedriaga’s enunciation above quoted — declares the ventral surface 
of var. asiatica to be unsprinkled. Thus Méhely’s observations on this 
interesting variety are, the right specific determination excepted, 
somewhat inexact, this being retraceable to Bedriaga s description 
and figures not pointing out to a sufficient degree 
the striking features. — Disposing of nine individuals (Mus. 
Hung. Amph. No. 2479/4) from A g i a s-T ekkes (Turkestan) col¬ 
lected in 1907 by Dr. G. Almásy, conspicuously differing from the typi¬ 
ca 1 R. arvalis Nilss. as well as from the above described var. Wolterstorffi , 
I presumed to a new variety ; however whilst searching for data in the 
