Hecht and Matalas (1946) have described and figured color patterns in various populations of _Gastrophryne_, demonstrating geographic trends and helping to clarify relationships. Their account indicates that the dark dorsal mark present in young of _olivacea_ but not present in adults, is better developed and longer persisting in other forms. Specimens of _carolinensis_, presumably adult, are figured which have the dark middorsal area contrasting with paler color of the sides. The dark area is seen to consist of dots or blotches of black pigment which may be in contact producing more or less continuous black areas, or may be separate and distinct producing a spotted pattern. Pigmentation is usually most intense along the lateral edges of the dorsal leaflike mark; the central portion may be so much paler that the effect is that of a pair of dorsolateral stripes. This latter type of pattern is best developed in the population of Key West, Florida. Hecht and Matalas did not consider these insular frogs to be taxonomically distinct, because only 48 percent of specimens from the Florida keys had the "Key West" pattern, while 29 per cent resembled _olivacea_ and 23 per cent resembled _carolinensis_. In the southwestern subspecies (or species) _mazatlanensis_, recorded from several localities in Sonora and from extreme southern Arizona, the dorsal pigmentation similarly tends to be concentrated in dorsolateral bands, but is much reduced or almost absent, and there is corresponding pigmentation dorsally across the middle of the thigh, across the middle of the shank, and on the foot. When the leg is folded, these three dark areas are brought in contact with each other and with the dorsolateral body mark, if it is present, to form a continuous dark area, in a characteristic "ruptive" pattern. Hecht and Matalas found similar leg bars, less well developed, in certain specimens of _olivacea_ including one from Gage County, Nebraska, at the northern end of the known geographic range. MOVEMENTS Freiburg (_op. cit._: 384) concluded that ant-eating frogs seem to have no individual home ranges, but wander in any direction where suitable habitat is present. However, from records covering a much longer span of time, it became increasingly evident that a frog ordinarily tends to stay within a small area, familiar to it and providing its habitat requirements. Nevertheless, in all but a few instances the marked frogs recaptured were in new locations a greater or lesser distance from the site of original capture. The movements made by these frogs were of several distinct types: 1. Routine day to day movements from shelter to shelter within the area familiar to the animal, the "home range." 2. Shifts from one home range to another; such shifts may have been either long or short, and may have occurred abruptly or by gradual stages.