_Syrrhophus gaigeae_ Schmidt and Smith, 1944:80 [Holotype.--FMNH 27361, from the Basin, Chisos Mountains, Brewster Co., Texas; collected on July 24, 1937, by Walter L. Necker]. _Syrrhophus petrophilus_ Firschein, 1954:50-52 [Holotype.--UIMNH 7807, from 5 km. SW San Luis Potosi, San Luis Potosi, Mexico; collected on July 18, 1949, by David Langebartel]. Gorham, 1966:166. _Syrrhophus marnocki_: Milstead, Mecham, and McClintock, 1950:548 (in part). _Diagnosis._--Medium-sized frogs, males 20.6-29.0 mm. snout-vent, females 25.7-31.0 mm. snout-vent length; vocal slits in males; digital tips slightly expanded (Fig. 1); first and second fingers equal; skin of dorsum smooth to moderately pustular, that of venter smooth; snout blunt; diameter of tympanum 55.1-75.7 per cent that of eye in males, 47.6-61.7 in females; dorsum and flanks cream to gray with light brown to black flecking and vermiculations; thighs usually not banded; interorbital bar present (Fig. 8). [Illustration: FIG. 9: _Syrrhophus guttilatus_ (upper left, UIMNH 55519, x1.4; lower left, UIMNH 55519, x2.3) and _S. marnockii_ (upper right, TCWC 9317, x1.4; lower right, TCWC 13510, x2.1).] _Remarks._--Cope (1879) distinguished _Malachylodes_ from _Syrrhophus_ on the basis of the presence of a frontoparietal fontanelle in the holotype of _guttilatus_. The holotype is a juvenile female and as is the case in the juveniles of nearly all leptodactylids, a frontoparietal fontanelle is present. Firschein (1954) used the presence of the fontanelle to distinguish _guttilatus_ from his _petrophilus_. As is clearly evident from the length of the synonymy, I consider a number of currently used names to be synonymous with _guttilatus_. I have seen the holotypes of all four names and am unable to recognize more than a single species. The holotype of _petrophilus_ is a male, whereas that of _smithi_ is a female. The supposed differences are a reflection of sexual dimorphism in the size of the eye (Table 5). The two holotypes, as well as those of _gaigeae_ and _Malachylodes guttilatus_ agree in color pattern. Schmidt and Smith (1944) named _Syrrhophus gaigeae_ from the Chisos Mountains of the Big Bend region of Texas and compared it only with _S. marnockii_. Milstead, Mecham and McClintock (1950) synonymized _gaigeae_ and _marnockii_ because they were unable to verify the characters Wright and Wright (1949) used to separate them. Specimens from the Big Bend region differ from those of the Edward and Stockton Plateaus in having a vermiculate pattern, an interorbital bar, and a supratympanic stripe. In these respects they agree with specimens from northern Mexico. Based on limited observations, the Mexican population is yellowish to brownish in life whereas the central Texas population is green in life. Lacking evidence of genetic exchange, the two are held to be specifically distinct.