two with _ebraccata_ (Fouquette, 1960b) provides further evidence for close relationship between the _Hyla leucophyllata_ and _Hyla microcephala_ groups. In México and northern Central America two small species, _Hyla picta_ and _Hyla smithi_, comprise the _Hyla picta_ group. These frogs resemble members of the _Hyla microcephala_ group by having a yellowish tan dorsum with a dorsolateral white stripe and uniformly yellow thighs. Furthermore the mating call is not unlike those of the species in the _Hyla microcephala_ group. Despite these similarities, the _Hyla picta_ group differs from the _Hyla microcephala_ group by having a well-developed quadratojugal that connects to the maxillary, tadpoles with teeth present and caudal fins completely enclosing the caudal musculature, and a haploid number of 12 chromosomes. In all of these characteristics the frogs of the _Hyla picta_ group more closely resemble other Middle American _Hyla_ than they do the _Hyla microcephala_ group. Therefore, it can best be presumed that the superficial resemblances of coloration and the mating call are the result of convergence. Since the _Hyla microcephala_ and _leucophyllata_ groups apparently are related and since the greatest diversity of these frogs is in South America (if _Hyla misera_ and its relatives are placed with the _Hyla microcephala_ group), it seems appropriate to place the centers of origins of these groups in South America. Therefore, the _Hyla microcephala_ group and _Hyla ebraccata_ of the _Hyla leucophyllata_ group either have immigrated into Central America, or they are representatives of those groups that were isolated in Central America during most of the Cenozoic when South America was separated from Central America. The interspecific relationships of the species in the _Hyla microcephala_ group are not clear. On the basis of coloration, _H. m. microcephala_ and _H. robertmertensi_ are close, and _H. m. underwoodi_ and _H. phlebodes_ are nearly identical. The mating calls of _H. phlebodes_ and _sartori_ closely resemble one another, whereas the call of _robertmertensi_ is intermediate between these and _microcephala_. In most respects _Hyla microcephala_ is distinct from the other species, and with the exception of the amount of ossification of the frontoparietals, the other species can be easily derived from a _microcephala_-like ancestor. Possibly the slightly increased ossification of the frontoparietals in _robertmertensi_, _phlebodes_, and _sartori_ is secondary, or possibly after differentiation of the species the amount of ossification was further reduced in _microcephala_. If so, the species fall into a reasonable phylogenetic scheme that has _microcephala_ as the extant species most like the ancestral stock.