In the chapter on geographical distribution in Bronn's Thierreich, Vögel, Systematischer Theil, p. 296 (1893), and in my Classification of Vertebrata (1898), due attention had been paid to the Amphibia as well as to the other classes of Vertebrata. It will be seen in the following pages that my arrangement is well applicable to the Amphibia so far as fundamental principles are concerned.

It cannot be sufficiently emphasised that any attempt to form the various faunas of the different classes of animals into one scheme must necessarily be a petitio principii. The time-honoured six zoo-geographical regions established by Sclater and Wallace represent fairly well the main continental divisions: North America, South America, Africa, Australia, and the large northern continental mass of the Old World, with India as a tropical appendix. There is no correlation and no subordination in this scheme. Huxley's division (1868) into Notogaea and Arctogaea (see p. 74) is of fundamental importance. The next improvement was the combination of the Palaearctic and Nearctic "regions" into one, an advance originally due to Professor Newton, carried out by Heilprin (1887) as the Holarctic region. I have, in 1893, substituted for it the more appropriate term Periarctic, meaning the whole mass of land which lies around the indifferent Arctic zone. The want of further co-ordination and subordination required the combination of the African and Oriental or Indian countries into a Palaeotropical region (1893); the Ethiopian or African and the Indian or Oriental regions of Sclater and Wallace thereby assuming their proper subordinate rank of subregions.

The two primary divisions Notogaea and Arctogaea are fundamental. The four secondary divisions, namely the Australian and Neotropical, Periarctic and Palaeotropical regions, also stand the test of application to the various classes and main groups of Vertebrata; but naturally, under the present configuration of the world, the Palaeotropical region is nothing but the Southern continuation of the Eastern half of the Periarctic mass of land. This is especially obvious so far as India is concerned. There is, however, that broad belt of desert, sand, and salt-steppes, which extends from North-West Africa to Manchuria, and this belt is one of the most important physical features of the Old World. It is complicated by the system of mountain-chains which, broadly speaking, centre at the Pamirs, and radiate westwards through the Caucasus and Alps into Spain, eastwards through the Himalayas into China, and north-eastwards to Kamtschatka; interrupted by Bering's Sea, it is continued as the backbone of both Americas to Patagonia.

The tertiary divisions, the subregions, have no real existence. They depend upon the class, or even order, of animals, which we happen to study. The faunistic distribution of the Urodela is not that of the Anura, and both follow separate lines of dispersal, different from those of the various orders of Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. This must be so. There is no doubt that the distribution of land and water was totally different in the Coal Age from what it is now. The face of the globe at the Jurassic Age can scarcely be compared with the aspect which the world has assumed in the Miocene period.

This leads to another consideration, often neglected. We know that the various classes, orders, families, etc., of animals have appeared successively upon the stage. A group which arose in the Coal Age followed lines of dispersal different from one which was not evolved until Jurassic times, and post-cretaceous creatures could not avail themselves of what assisted their ancestors, and vice versâ. The Amphibia are bound absolutely to the land and to fresh water; transportation across salt water is not excluded, but must be accidental, and is not a case of regular "spreading." Speaking generally, the older a group, the more likely is it to be widely distributed. If it appears scattered, this may be due to extinction in intermediate countries or to submergence of former land-connexions.

There is great danger of arguing in a circle. It is one of the most difficult tasks to decide in cases of great resemblance of groups of animals between their being due to direct affinity or to heterogeneous convergence, or parallel development. It is the morphologist who is ultimately responsible for the establishment of faunistic regions, not the systematist, least of all he who accepts an elaborate classification, and then mechanically, mathematically, by lists of genera and species, maps out the world. Let us take an example. The Neotropical region and Madagascar, but not Africa, are supposed to be faunistically related to each other. In both namely occur Boa and Corallus amongst snakes, Dendrobatinae amongst Ranidae, and of the Insectivora Solenodon in Cuba, Centetes in Madagascar. More cases can no doubt be found which would strengthen this resemblance, perhaps in support of the startling view that Madagascar and South America have received part of their fauna from the famous Antarctica. But the value of the Insectivores has been disposed of by their recognition as an extremely ancient group, or as a case of convergence, and the two genera are no longer put into the same family as Centetidae. The Dendrobatinae (Mantella in Madagascar, the others in South America) are decidedly not a natural group, but an instance of very recent convergence (cf. p. 272). About the members of the ancient Boidae we do not feel quite so sure.

It is therefore advisable to eliminate for zoogeographical purposes groups about which there can be any reasonable doubt, otherwise we may argue that certain genera must constitute a very old family, because they are now restricted to widely separated countries, or on the strength of their distribution we may conclude that the genera in question cannot be related to each other, and do not belong to the same sub-family or family as the case may be. Such groups are the Engystomatinae and the genus Spelerpes; amongst reptiles the Eublepharidae, Helodermatidae, Anelytropidae, Ilysiidae, Amblycephalidae.

It is customary to represent the various regions and sub-regions as if they had boundaries as fixed as political frontiers. Such limitations are quite arbitrary, and what is of more importance, they differ in reality according to the class or order of animals with which we happen to deal. Moreover, there has been, and is probably still going on, an exchange or overlapping of faunas. Such debatable grounds are Central America and the highlands of North-western South America. The famous Wallace's line, between Borneo and Celebes, Java and Lombok, is absolutely inapplicable to the Anura. From their point of view the Austro-Malayan countries, Papuasia and Polynesia do not form a sub-region of the Australian, but rather of the Palaeotropical region. Concerning the Urodela, the division into Palae- and Ne-arctic sub-regions is unjustifiable since Eastern Asia has emphatically American affinities (cf. also p. 96). The Sahara and the rest of Northern Africa are intimately connected with Arabia, Persia, Afghanistan, and Northern India, just as equatorial Africa and Madagascar possess strong faunistic relationship with Southern India and the Malay islands.

Limiting factors of distribution.–Common salt is poison to the Amphibia; even a solution of 1 per cent prevents the development of their larvae. Consequently seas, salt lakes, and plains encrusted with saline deposits act as most efficient boundaries to normal "spreading." But undoubtedly many individuals have made long and successful voyages across the seas on floating trees. Solutions of lime are likewise detrimental to many species, and it is a general fact that limestone-terrain is poor in Amphibian life, unless, of course, sufficient accumulation of humus counteracts or prevents the calcareous impregnation of the springs and pools in meadows. Salamandra maculosa is, for instance, absent in Central Germany on the Muschelkalk, but it occurs in abundance in neighbouring districts of red sandstone or granite; nor can the larvae be reared successfully in very "hard" water. On the other hand, Proteus lives in the subterranean waters of Carniola, where the whole country is nothing but limestone.

Cold is another powerful limiting factor. The absolute northern limit of Amphibian life coincides rather closely with the somewhat erratic line of 0° Centigrade of annual mean temperature, a little to the north of which line the ground remains permanently frozen below the surface. The surface-crust, which thaws during the summer, engenders an abundance of insects as food-supply, but its freezing down to the icy bottom makes hibernation impossible. There are, of course, some exceptions, for instance the occurrence of Urodela in the Schilka river and in the district of Lake Baikal.

Ranges of mountains are far less effective barriers than is generally supposed. In many cases the fauna is the same on either slope, and they act rather as equalising or dispersing factors, especially when they extend from north to south. Witness the Andes, owing to which Ecuador and Peru bear a great resemblance to the Central American fauna, and differ from the tropical parts of South America. The existence of an Amblystoma in Siam is another instance.

The more specialised a family the more intimately is it connected with the physical features of the country. Typically arboreal frogs are dependent on the presence of trees. Some have undoubtedly spread into treeless countries and have changed into prairie-frogs, e.g. Acris. They come out, so to speak, as something different at the other end, and it is unlikely that these modified descendants redevelop exactly the same features as their ancestors before the migration. Baldwin Spencer^[39] met with only six species of frogs in Central Australia, Limnodynastes, Chiroleptes, Heleioporus, and Hyla. They are in the main identical with certain forms found in the dry inland parts of New South Wales and Queensland. They are to be regarded as immigrants from the latter regions, which have been able in the majority of cases to adapt themselves to unfavourable climatic conditions by means of a marked development of the burrowing habit, to which in certain cases has been added a capacity for absorbing and holding water.

Faunistic divisions of the Amphibia.

NOTOGÆA.–South World.

* indicates Amphibia which are peculiar to the respective regions or sub-regions.

Characterised by the Cystignathidae* and by the predominance of Arcifera, which form nearly 90 per cent of the Anurous population.

I. Australian region.–Absence of Apoda and Urodela. All the Anura are arciferous, with the exception of one species of Rana in the Cape York peninsula. The fauna of the Australian continent and of Tasmania consists chiefly of Cystignathidae and Hylidae (Hyla and Hylella) and several small genera of Bufonidae (Pseudophryne,* Notaden,* and Myobatrachus*).

It is customary, and from the study of other Vertebrata quite justifiable, to divide the Australian region into several sub-regions, but the Amphibia lend no support to this. The only Amphibian in the Sandwich Islands is a Bufo, closely related to North American species. The only Amphibian in New Zealand is Liopelma,* one of the Discoglossidae which are otherwise confined to Europe, North-east Asia, and North-west America, and, to judge from their low organisation, had formerly a much wider distribution. New Caledonia possesses no Amphibia. The Fiji Islands are inhabited by one or two species of Cornufer, a genus of Ranidae. The same genus is typical of the Austro-Malayan and Papuasian islands, the fauna of which consists of Rana and Cornufer, Ceratobatrachus, several genera of Engystomatinae, Hylidae, and Pelobatidae.

II. Neotropical region.–Characterised by Apoda, Aglossa (Pipa), abundance of Cystignathidae (Hemiphractinae,* Cystignathinae, and Dendrophryniscinae*), Hylidae (Hylinae and Amphignathodontinae*), numerous Bufonidae and Engystomatinae; Dendrobatinae*; the Raninae are represented by a few peculiar genera, mostly restricted to the Andesian province; the genus Rana occurs there in a few species only.

Absence of Discoglossidae, Pelobatidae and Dyscophinae.

Several species of Urodela, of the genus Spelerpes, extend from Central America into the Andesian province, one occurs in Hayti, and Plethodon platense in Argentina.

This region is by far the richest in the number of families, genera and species; the total number of the latter being, according to Boulenger, about four-ninths of the known species. The region comprises South America, Central America, and the West Indian islands. Central America is naturally debatable ground; one species of Hylodes and one Engystoma, besides about twenty Hylidae, extend into North America proper, while possibly the Raninae have entered the Neotropical region from the north. Bufo is too cosmopolitan to assist our conclusions. The occurrence of four species of Hylella in South America, one in Australia, and one in New Guinea indicate that this is not a natural genus.

From the point of the Amphibia the whole region can be divided into two sub-regions only: (1) The West Indian islands with Central America and the north-western Andesian province; (2) the rest of South America.

ARCTOGAEA.–North World.

Characterised by the absence of Cystignathidae.

I. Periarctic Region.–Characterised by the Urodela, these being almost peculiar to the region (cf. p. 96). Absence of Apoda. Presence of Discoglossidae, Pelobatidae, Bufonidae, Raninae. Few Hylinae occur.

The whole region can be subdivided into three sub-regions.

1. Western Palaearctic.–Prevalence of Salamandrinae (Salamandra,* Chioglossa,* Salamandrina,* Triton); Proteidae (Proteus anguinus*); Spelerpes fuscus.*–Discoglossus, Bombinator, Alytes,* Bufo, Hyla arborea, Pelobates,* Pelodytes,* Rana.

2. Eastern Palaearctic.–Amphiumidae (Cryptobranchus); Salamandrinae (Triton, Pachytriton,* Tylototriton*); Amblystomatinae.–Bombinator, Bufo, Hyla arborea, Rana, Rhacophorus.

3. Nearctic.–Amphiumidae (Cryptobranchus, Amphiuma*); Proteidae (Typhlomolge,* Necturus*); Sirenidae*; Amblystomatinae; most Plethodontinae; Desmognathinae.*–Discoglossidae, Pelobatidae (Scaphiopus*); Bufo; Hylidae (Hyla, Acris, Chorophilus); Rana.

II. Palaeotropical region.–Characterised by the presence of Apoda and by the great prevalence of Firmisternal Anura, which amount to nearly 90 per cent of the total population. Absence of Urodela (except Amblystoma persimile*), of Cystignathidae, and practically of the Hylidae, only two of which occur in the Himalayan district. But this great chain of mountains should not be included within the region, while the outlying spurs in Upper Burma (with Amblystoma) are debatable ground. The subdivision of this widely extended region is beset with difficulties, chiefly on account of Madagascar and Papuasia. The fauna of Madagascar is very remarkable. All its Amphibia are Firmisternal, a mixture of African and Indian forms. The island agrees with Africa, in opposition to the Oriental countries, in no special point; all the Raninae, except Megalixalus, Rappia, and two rather common species of Rana, belong to different genera. Madagascar differs from Africa by the absence of Apoda, of Aglossa, and Bufonidae. On the other hand, it agrees with India or with the Malay islands, in opposition to Africa, by the possession of Dyscophinae, of the Ranine genus Rhacophorus, and the Engystomatine genus Calophrynus.

Africa and India agree with each other, and differ from Madagascar by the possession of Apoda, the genera Bufo and Nectophryne, and by the close resemblance of several genera of Raninae.

India, the Malay islands, and Papuasia with Melanesia possess Pelobatidae (Leptobrachium,* Batrachopsis,* Asterophrys*), and thereby differ considerably from Africa and Madagascar. Batrachylodes* of the Solomon Islands has unmistakable affinities with Phrynoderma* of Karen, between Burma and Siam; Oreobatrachus* of Borneo much resembles Phrynobatrachus* of West Africa; and Cornufer, typical of the Malay and Melanesian islands, occurs also in West Africa. All these Raninae indicate that the Austro-Malayan and Melanesian islands belong to the Palaeotropical region. Ceratobatrachus,* type of a sub-family, is peculiar to Melanesia.

There are consequently several possible modes of subdivision, all with a different result, according to the group of Amphibia, which we may select as of leading importance, e.g. Apoda or Pelobatidae, or Dyscophinae and Rhacophorus. The Engystomatinae and Raninae are to be eliminated, since they occur in all the countries in question. We have either to leave the whole region undivided–and it is a significant fact that the Indian countries possess not one sub-family of their own–or we must break it up into four provinces, not sub-regions:–

DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES AND SUB-FAMILIES OF THE AMPHIBIA.

CHAPTER IV

STEGOCEPHALI OR LABYRINTHODONTS–LISSAMPHIBIA–APODA

Sub-Class I. STEGOCEPHALI OR PHRACTAMPHIBIA

With a considerable amount of dermal armour, especially on the head.

The earliest known terrestrial four-footed creatures occur in the Carboniferous strata of Europe and North America. They and their immediate allies, which extend through the Permian into the Upper Trias, are now comprised under the name of Stegocephali, so called because the whole of the dorsal side of the cranium is covered, or roofed over, by dermal bones (στέγος, roof; κεφαλή, head). That these creatures, of which naturally only the skeletal parts are known, were not fishes, is shown by the typically pentadactyloid limbs; but to recognise them as Amphibia, and as distinct from Reptiles, is difficult, especially if the incipient Reptilia, which have sprung from some members of this Stegocephalous stock, are taken into account. However, they possess either two occipital condyles, or none, and their vertebrae are either pseudocentrous or notocentrous, but not gastrocentrous. Moreover, the whole skeletal organisation is still so ideally generalised, that it is easy to derive directly from it the arrangement prevailing in the Apoda and Urodela.

The vertebral column always comprises a well-developed, sometimes a very long tail. The vertebrae exhibit three types, two of which are fundamentally distinct, while the third is a further development of the second.

1. Lepospondylous and pseudocentrous.–The vertebra consists of a thin shell of bone surrounding the chorda dorsalis, and is composed of two pairs of arcualia, which meet each other, forming a suture, along the lateral side of the vertebra, both partaking in the formation of a transverse process which carries the rib.

2a. Temnospondylous.–The vertebra is composed of three pairs of units, which remain in a separate, unfused state. Two of them are dorsal arcualia, one of which tends to form the centrum of the vertebra, which then carries the neural arch.

2b. Stereospondylous.–The three component units fuse by co-ossification into a solid, amphicoelous vertebra.

The ribs are one- or two-headed, rather strong, but short, rarely reaching half-way round the body. They occur on all the vertebrae of the trunk and on most of those of the tail. One pair of ribs connects one vertebra, the sacral, with the pelvis, of which the ilium and ischium are generally ossified, rarely also a portion of the pubic region.

The shoulder-girdle is very primitive, greatly resembling that of the Crossopterygian fishes. It consists of the following bones:–a median, rhombic, or T-shaped interclavicle, a pair of clavicles, of cleithra, of coracoids, and of scapulae. The limbs show the typical pentadactyle plan, but even in these earliest Tetrapoda the hand possesses only four fingers, with 2, 2, 3, 2 phalanges respectively. The foot has five toes, with 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, or 2, 2, 3, 4, 3 phalanges.

Many Stegocephali were possessed of a dermal armour, covering either the whole body or only the under parts. Hence the term Phractamphibia (φρακτός, armoured). The armour consists of a great number of small cutaneous scales, partly calcified, or perhaps ossified, and arranged in many more or less transverse rows. We can only surmise that these scales were covered by corresponding epidermal sheaths. The skull is ideally complete in the number of separate bones which appear on its surface. Besides the outer nares and the orbits there is always an unpaired, small, interparietal foramen. The whole temporal region is completely roofed over. The following bones are present:–nasals, frontals, parietals, supra- and latero-occipitals; lacrymals (unless fused with the jugals?), prefrontals, postfrontals, postorbitals, squamosals, and epi-(or opisth-)otics; premaxillaries, maxillaries, jugals, quadrato-jugals, and supra-temporals; quadrates, pterygoids, palatines, vomers, and an unpaired parasphenoid.–The lower jaw is composed of a pair of dentaries, articulars, angulars, and splenials. The dentaries and apparently sometimes the splenials, the palatines, maxillae, and vomers carry teeth. The eyes possess a ring of sclerotic bones.

Order I. STEGOCEPHALI LEPOSPONDYLI.

Vertebrae pseudocentrous.

Sub-Order 1. Branchiosauri.–The young had several pairs of gill-arches, which, to judge from their size and from the fact that they are beset with numerous nodules, denticles, or irregular little processes like gill-rakers–seem to have been exposed to the surface and to have carried gills. In the adult the arches and gills seem to be absent.

One of the commonest genera is Branchiosaurus, including Protriton. B. salamandroides of the Lower Red Sandstone of Europe is known in every stage, from larvae of 16 mm. to the full grown animal of 64 mm. in length. The whole body was covered with little cutaneous scales. Pelosaurus and perhaps Melanerpeton are allied genera.

The following genera are small newt-like creatures of the Carboniferous age of Europe and North America. In Keraterpeton of Bohemia, Ireland, and Ohio, the dermal scales were restricted to the under parts; and the ribs were rather long, reaching half way round the body. Gills have not been observed. K. crassum, a European species, reached more than one foot in length, two-thirds of which fall to the tail. The ventral side is covered with a most elaborate armour, which consists of about eighty chevron-shaped rows of little scale-shaped nodules. The epiotic bones end in strange processes, carrying a pair of spikes, giving the skull a "horned" appearance, hence the generic name. Urocordylus is an allied genus.

Sub-Order 2. Aistopodes.–Body snake-like and without any limbs, hence the name ἄιστος, unseen; ribs long, and reaching half way round the body; from Carboniferous strata in Ireland and Bohemia, with allied, or perhaps identical forms in Ohio. Dolichosoma longissimum possessed more than 150 vertebrae, and was about a yard long. The epiotics end in obtuse projections, recalling those of Keraterpeton. These marvellous creatures had strange appendages, extending from behind the sides of the head, which were possibly the supports of external gills; since the upper end of one of the visceral arches, probably the hyoidean arch, is attached to the labyrinthic region, and from this arch starts a bony rod which carries long skeletal filaments. The body seems to have been naked.

Ophiderpeton had a compound ventral shield, while the skin of the back contained granular scutes. Although the Aistopodes have, not without reason, been looked upon as greatly resembling the Coeciliae or Apoda in organisation, especially in that of the vertebral column, the total absence of any other fossils which might bridge over the enormous gulf between the Coal Age and recent times, makes the attempt to derive the Apoda from these creatures very hazardous.

Order II. STEGOCEPHALI TEMNOSPONDYLI.

Mostly with rather long ribs and with chiefly ventral armour.

Chelydosaurus from the Lower Red Sandstone of Bohemia was 3 feet long, and possessed a beautiful, complicated, ventral armour, consisting of about sixty chevron-shaped rows, about three times as numerous as the vertebrae in the corresponding region. Sphenosaurus from the same strata and localities must have been 2 yards long. The trunk-vertebrae of both these genera were composed of four pairs of arcualia. Trimerorhachis from the Permian of Texas is very imperfectly known, but its trunk-vertebrae, as the name implies, consist of three pairs of separate arcualia, one of which, the interdorsal pair, tends to form a kind of centrum.

Dissorophus multicinctus, also from the Permian of Texas, has been described by Cope^[40] as a "Batrachian Armadillo," and considered allied to Trimerorhachis. Ten vertebrae are known, of an aggregate length of 93 mm.; the length of the creature was perhaps one yard. The neural spines are elevated, and the apex of each extends in an arch on each side to the ribs. These spinous branches touch each other, forming a carapace. Above, and corresponding to each of them, is a similar dermal and osseous element, which extends from side to side without interruption in the median line, forming a dermal layer of transverse bands which correspond to the skeletal carapace beneath it. This creature remotely approaches the genus Zatachys, Cope, where a dermosteous scute is co-ossified with the apex of the neural spine. The systematic position of this genus is at least doubtful.

Archegosaurus decheni from the Lower Red of Germany, known by many well-preserved specimens, reached a length of 4 or 5 feet. The trunk vertebrae are tri-partite, those of the tail quadri-partite, like those of the trunk of Chelydosaurus. Young specimens show traces of gill-arches. The thoroughly terrestrial walking limbs have four fingers and four toes; the arrangement of the tarsalia, most of which are ossified, lend support to the view that the morphological axis went through femur, fibula, intermedium, the centralia, the second distal tarsale, and the second toe. The dentine and enamel of the teeth are much folded, and this feature, which applies to most members of this Order, to a lesser degree also to others, has caused them to be comprised under the name of Labyrinthodonta. The upper surface of the head shows very characteristically arranged grooves, which probably contained slime-canals and possibly sensory organs.

Actinodon and Euchirosaurus are closely allied forms, chiefly from the Lower Red Sandstone of France; Gondwanosaurus occurs in the Permian of India.

Order III. STEGOCEPHALI STEREOSPONDYLI.

These are the most highly developed members of the typical Labyrinthodonta, characterised by their much-folded teeth, and by their solid, bi-concave vertebrae. Loxomma occurs in the Upper Carboniferous of England and in the Lower Red of Bohemia: Trematosaurus, Capitosaurus, and Metopias from the New Red or Lower Trias to the Keuper of Germany. Mastodonsaurus from the Trias of England and Germany is the most gigantic Amphibian known, with a skull of nearly 1 yard in length.

Labyrinthodon from the Keuper of Warwickshire is one of the latest members of the group. Labyrinthodont creatures have also been described from the Trias of South Africa, e.g. Rhytidosteus; those from North America are insufficiently preserved.

Many of these and allied genera have left their footprints in slabs of Sandstone, both Lower and New Red, in Europe, Africa, and America. But although their spoors are common enough, only a few can with certainty be referred to Stegocephali, e.g. Saurichnites salamandroides of the Lower Red of Germany. The spoors of Chirotherium, common in the New Red of Germany and England, for instance in Cheshire, belong to unknown owners; both the large hind feet (which measure nearly half a foot in length) and the much smaller fore feet, had five digits, the first of which stood off like a thumb. Five-fingered Stegocephali are unknown.

There is an almost complete absence of fossil Amphibia from the Upper Trias to the Oligocene. The Stegocephali as such seem to have died out with the Trias. The recent Amphibia, of course, must have had ancestors in the Mesozoic age. There is one little skeleton, from the Wealden of Belgium, which belonged to a newt-like creature, called Hylaeobatrachus croyi. Scarce fragments, described as Megalotriton, are known from the Oligocene of France, and Triton itself seems to be indicated by remnants in the Lower Miocene of France and Germany. But fairly complete specimens of large creatures, much resembling Cryptobranchus, have been found in the Upper Miocene of Oeningen, Canton Solothurn, Switzerland. The first known specimen, now at Haarlem, indicating a total length of 3 feet or more, was described and figured in the year 1726 by Scheuchzer, in a learned dissertation entitled "Homo diluvii testis."

Which may be rendered as follows:–

This was the motto attached to the illustration, and it remained a warning to mankind until Cuvier declared the skeleton to be that of some large newt. Tschudi named it Andrias scheuchzeri, but it is scarcely generically distinct from Cryptobranchus, being almost intermediate between C. alleghaniensis and C. japonicus, see p. 97.

Sub-Class II. LISSAMPHIBIA.

Amphibia without dermal armour.

Order I. APODA or LIMBLESS AMPHIBIA.

The Amphibia Apoda, Coeciliae or Gymnophiona, are a small group of worm-shaped, burrowing creatures, restricted to the Neotropical and Palaeotropical regions, excluding Madagascar. They have no limbs and no girdles. The tail is extremely short; the vertebrae are pseudo-centrous, and most of them carry rather long ribs, none of which, however, meet to form a sternum. The whole snake-like body is covered with a smooth and slimy skin which forms numerous transverse folds or rings.

The most remarkable feature of the skull is its solid compactness, which stands in direct correlation with the burrowing habits of these creatures. The whole dorsal surface of the cranium is practically roofed in by bone, so that, in this respect, it greatly resembles that of the Stegocephali; but this resemblance is produced chiefly by a broadening of those bones which exist also in the other Lissamphibia, while supratemporals and supra-occipitals are absent.

There is, however, a pair of bones which represent either the postorbitals or the postfrontals, perhaps both, of the Stegocephali. The quadrato-jugal arch is enormously developed, and by reaching the parietal, frontal, and postorbito-frontal bones (which latter occur only in Ichthyophis and Uraeotyphlus) and the maxilla, extends over the whole of the orbito-temporal fossa. The squamosal is completely fused with the quadrato-jugal. The stapes has the typical stirrup-shape, is even perforated by an artery, and articulates distally with the shaft of the quadrate (as in the snakes). The maxilla is very large and broad. Owing to its broad junction with the quadrato-jugal arch, the prefrontal and frontal, the orbital fossa is reduced to a very small hole, or the maxilla completely covers the eye. Somewhere between the latter and the nares the maxilla is perforated by the tentacular groove. The periotic bones are represented by the prootics and epiotics; they fuse with the lateral occipitals and with the parasphenoid. The whole orbito-ethmoidal region of the primordial skull is also turned into one mass of bone.

The angular element of the lower jaw forms a thick and large process which projects upwards and backwards from the mandibular joint. The former possession of a splenial bone is indicated by the occurrence of a second series of teeth in the mandibles of Ichthyophis and Uraeotyphlus. Other genera have vestiges of this second row, or it may be completely lost.

The hyoid and branchial apparatus is more primitive than in any other recent Amphibia. In the larva the hyoid and the first and second branchial arches are connected with each other by a median copular piece. The third branchial arches are free from the rest, but are fused in the middle line, the fourth are loosely attached to the previous pair. In the adult both fuse into one transverse, curved bar, and the second pair of branchials lose their connexion with the basal longitudinal piece and likewise form a transverse bar.

The vertebrae are built upon the pseudocentrous type, are amphicoelous, and the chorda is intravertebrally destroyed by cartilage, as in the majority of the Urodela. The number of vertebrae is great, amounting in some species to between 200 and 300, of which a few belong to the tail. The first vertebra is devoid of an odontoid process. The ribs are proximally bifurcated as in the Urodela.

The eyes are practically useless, being either more or less concealed under the skin, or they are covered by the maxillary bones. All Coecilians possess a peculiar tentacular sensory apparatus, which consists of a conical flap-shaped or globular soft tentacle, which is lodged in a special groove or canal of the maxilla, between the eye and the nose, whence it is frequently protruded while the animal is crawling about. These tentacles in the young Siphonops lie, according to the Sarasins, quite close to the eyes, but are later transferred nearer to the nose. The organ consists of a peculiarly rolled up and pointed fold which arises from the bottom of the sac or pit, where it receives a nerve. It is protruded by becoming turgid with blood, and is retracted by a strong muscle. Into the lumen of the sac are poured secretions from the large orbital (Harderian) gland, to keep the apparatus clean. Hence arose the mistaken notion of its being a poison-organ. The whole structure is possibly an offshoot of the naso-lacrymal duct.

The skin is most remarkable. In the ripe embryo the epidermis passes smoothly over the surface. Beneath follow two layers of soft cutaneous connective tissue, bound together by transverse or vertical lamellae, so that ring-shaped compartments are formed, and in these are embedded slime-glands. In the adult each compartment is modified into an anterior glandular belt and a posterior space, from the bottom of which grow several scales. The number of cutaneous rings agrees originally with that of the vertebrae; but later, and especially in the hinder portion of the trunk, each ring breaks up into two or more secondary segments, and these no longer agree with those of the skeleton. Each scale is beset with numerous smaller scales which consist of hardened cell-secretions infiltrated with calcareous matter. The whole scale is consequently an entirely mesodermal product of the deeper layers of the cutis. The usual statement that the skin forms imbricating lamellae, on the inner side of which appear the scales, is wrong. The "lamellae" can be lifted up only after the general epidermal sheath has been broken artificially in the constrictions between the rings. No scales exist in the Indian genus Gegenophis and in the American Siphonops, Typhlonectes, and Chthonerpeton, a secondary loss which does not indicate relationship. The scales develop late in embryonic life, and they are reasonably looked upon as inheritances from the Stegocephali. The glands either produce slime, whose function seems to be the keeping clean of the surface of the body, or they are squirt-glands. The latter kind are also numerous and are filled with a fluid which is squeezed out by muscular contraction, and seems to be poisonous, as it causes sneezing to those who handle or dissect fresh specimens.

The Coecilians live in moist ground and lead a burrowing life. Their developmental history has only recently been studied, and in but a few species, see Ichthyophis, p. 91, and Hypogeophis, p. 92. The female is fertilised internally, copulation taking place by means of eversion of the cloacal walls in the shape of a tube. The spermatozoa possess an undulating membrane; the eggs undergo meroblastic division and the embryos have three pairs of long external gills. Some are viviparous.

The snake-like, limbless shape of the body (Fig. 15) is, as in snakes, correlated with an asymmetrical development of the lungs; the left is reduced, while the right is drawn out into a long cylindrical sac. The liver is likewise very long, and partly constricted into a great number of lobes. Owing to the great reduction of the ribs progression is effected in an almost earthworm-like fashion by the peristaltic motion of the skin, assisted by its numerous ring-shaped constrictions.

The systematic position of the Coeciliae has been, and is still, a controversial matter. The Sarasins took up Cope's suggestion, that their nearest allies are the Urodela, especially Amphiuma, and they went so far as to look upon Amphiuma as a neotenic form of the "Coecilioidea," which they divided into Amphiumidae and Coeciliidae; the Coecilioidea and Salamandroidea forming the two sub-orders of the Urodela. They based this startling conclusion chiefly upon remarkable resemblances between Amphiuma and Ichthyophis, namely, (1) the mode of laying the eggs on land and coiling themselves around them; (2) the existence of remnants of a tentacular apparatus in Amphiuma; (3) Cope's statement that Amphiuma alone among the Urodela possesses an ethmoid like the Coeciliae. This latter point is, however, erroneous; it has since been shown by Davison^[41] that Amphiuma possesses no ethmoid bone, but that, instead of it, descending plates of the frontals join below the premaxilla and function as a nasal septum, with a canal for the olfactory nerves.

We look upon the Apoda with more reason as creatures which of all the Lissamphibia have retained most Stegocephalous characters and at the same time form a highly specialised group equivalent to the Urodela and the Anura. The following are Stegocephalous inheritances peculiar to the Apoda in opposition to the other recent Amphibia: retention of cutaneous scales with calcareous incrustations, greatly resembling the scales of the Carboniferous Microsauri; occasional retention of post-frontal and lateral nasal or lacrymal bones, and of a second row of teeth in the mandible. To these may be added the presence of epiotic bones, and the primitive character of the branchial arches. The loss of all these characters would turn the present Apoda into limbless Urodela, but this assumption does not justify their inclusion in this Order. The possible homology of the tentacular apparatus has been discussed elsewhere, p. 45.