Horváth Géza (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 2. (Budapest 1904)
Méhely, L.: Investigations on Paraguayan Batrachians
INVESTIGATIONS ON PARAGUAYAN BATRACHIANS. ál 5 at all, may only be arisen through natural selection for the purpose of defence.* It is an other question, which family this frog can be referred to. Mr. BOULENGER writes ** on this point : «The genus Eupemphix STDR. (= Engystomops ESPADA) must, on account of the absence of teeth, be referred to the family Bufonidae, although it is in every other respect identifical with Paludicola, to which it stands in the same relation as Pseudophry ne to (Innia ; this shows ihat frog-families founded upon the presence or absence of teeth are artificial associations.» I am quite the same opinion and just for this reason I cannot decide myself to draw this species to the Bufonidae. The organisation of Enjiemphix Nattereri STDR. is so highly identifical with that of Ihlndico'a and even the sternal apparatus (pl. XIII, fig. 9) is exactly of the same structurasin Paludicola signifera GIR. (pl. XIII, fig. 6) or in Paludicola fuse omacu,lata STDR. (pl. XIII, fig. 7) that it would be by no means justifiable to tear so closely allied species into two families. The presence or absence of maxillary-teeth does not seem to me an important character and it appears better to accept that, though most of the genera of Cystignathidae are characterized by the presence of maxillary-teeth, there are at the same time a few genera without. I fully agree in this respect with Mr. BOULENGER. who points out several times*** that the establishing of families on the presence or absence of teeth, as has been invariably the practice since the time of D UMÉRIL and BIBRON, is a very dubious treating. Mr. BOULENGER subordinates this character to other points of structure derived from the skeleton. as I just have done in the case of Eupemphix. 8. Leptodactylus mystacinus BURM. (Pl. XIII, fig. It.) Cystignathus Schomburgkii GÜNTHER inec TROSCHEL, 1848», Cat. Batr. Sal., 1858, p. 29. Cystignathus mystacinus BURMEISTER. Reise d. La Plata-Staaten, II, 1861, p. 532. Cystignathus mystaceus HENSEL, Arch. f. Naturg., 1867, p. 125. Leptodactylus mystacinus BOULENGER, Cat. Batr. Sal., 1882, p. 214. * Similar lumbar spots, certainly for the same purpose, are on Metopostira ocellata MÉH . from New Guinea (Természeti-. Fűz., XXIV, 1901, p. 239, tab. XII, fig. 1). ** Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (6) I, 1*88, p. 188. *** Firstly in his Catalogue of Batr. Sal., 1882, lastly in his valuable paper on Hyme-nochirus (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (7i IV, 1899, p. 125).
