OCR Text |
Show 1895.] SOUTH-AMERICAN MARSUPIAL. 871 positive about the exact position and relationships of the little marsupial described by M r . Tomes. It unfortunately happened that the name given by M r . Tomes, Hyracodon \ was preoccupied by the Ungulate Hyracodon of Leidy2, so that tbe genus has now had to be renamed, and I have proposed for it3 the name Ccenolestesi, as it is a modern member of an ancient group of fossil marsupials, among which the affix -testes has been often employed. The specimen on which the present account is based was obtained near Bogota by an Indian in the employment of m y kind Colombian correspondent Mr. Geo. D. Child, and the latter is to be congratulated on the capture of such a prize. In fact the rediscovery of Tomes's genus, both on account of its having so long been a puzzle to zoologists, and still more on account of the relationship it proves to possess to long extinct fossil forms, I venture to consider one of the most interesting events that have happened in mammalogy for many years. Comparing it, as one may not unnaturally do, with Dr. Stirling's discovery of Notoryctes, also representing an additional family of Marsupials, one sees that while the latter is of surpassing interest to the general zoologist on account of the entire novelty of its structure and its unique adaptation (among Marsupials) to a talpine life, Ceenolestes, with its uninteresting exterior, appeals mainly to the technical Mammalogist. To him, however, with its intense palaeontological and geographical interest, and the added puzzle its structure gives rise to in the general classification of the order, no animal will appear more important or more worthy of close and detailed study. That by the arrival of spirit-specimens any such admirable account of its anatomy may be rendered possible as the one on Notoryctes by Dr. Gadow is very much to be hoped. The present specimen is a skin with a perfect skull. It is an old individual, and the teeth are apparently rather worn, so that for a clear detailed knowledge of their structure we must still wait for further examples. With this exception the following is a description of the genus, so far as the external characters and skull are concerned. To keep the description together and to avoid repetition, I have included both such characters as may possibly prove to be only of specific value and those that are clearly of family rank. A short analysis of them is, however, given later. It has been found necessary (I. c.) to consider the Bogotan example as representing a new species, named Ceenolestes obscurus, but it is evidently so closely allied to C. fuliginosus that for the 1 I am informed by Mr. Sclater that this name had no reference to Hyrax as zoologists know it, i. e. Procavia, but to i)pa%, a shrew, the word therefore most appropriately meaning Shrew-tooth. » Proc. Ac. Philad. viii. p. 91 (1856). 3 Ann. Mag. N. H. (6) xvi. p. 367 (1895). 4 naivbs, modern ; Xyurjjs, a pirate or other predatory person. |