SUMRL\RY. 51 



simple and resembles that of Potamogale and Chrysochloris in being composed 

 of the last three cervical and first dorsal nerves, with the partial exception of 

 the one instance mentioned in which a slender thread from the fifth cervical 

 entered tlie complex. In Solenodon cuhanus the fifth cervical nerve seems to 

 enter as a major element of the plexus and the same is true in the Centetidae. 

 This fact is of interest in connection with the additional dorsal vertebra in Soleno- 

 don paradoxus as compared with tlie more specialized condition in S. cuhanus. 



The lumbo-sacral plexus (Plate 6, figs. 2, 3) of S. paradoxus was ch.ssected 

 in three individuals and found to differ from that figured by Dobson for ^S. 

 cuhanus. The chief nerves composing the plexus are the second, third, and 

 fourth lumbars, and the first sacral. In Centetes the second sacral in addition 

 enters into the complex, and this was found to be the case in one of the specimens 

 of Solenodon parado.vus. The anterior crural and the obturator nerve arise 

 mainly as branches of the second lumbar in two individuals while in a third 

 they are from the third lumbar. In this specimen the great sciatic is neverthe- 

 less, mainly from the fourth lumbar as in the two other individuals. Dobson's 

 figiu'e of the lumbar plexus in »S'. cuhanus shows the anterior crural and the 

 obturator arising together as in S. paradoxus, but from the fourth lumbar while 

 the sciatic is composed of trunks from the first two sacrals. It is possible that 

 confusion has arisen in numbering the several trunks, as otherwise the condition 

 in the two species is the same. In S. paradoxus all the lumbar nerves virtually 

 enter into the j^lcxus by the first lumbar nerve sending a minute filament pos- 

 teriorly to unite with the next following nerve as it issues from its foramen. 



SUMMARY. 



In external and cranial characters, Solenodon paradoxus differs verj- mark- 

 etlly from S. cubanus as has been recently pointed out by Dr. J. A. Allen (:08), 

 who has suggested that these differences may be considered of subgeneric value. 

 In view of his careful sunnnary, it is needless to repeat his conclusions here. 

 It may be added, however, that the presence of a white nape spot is a fairly 

 constant character of S. paradoxus, instead of an individual variation as seemed 

 to be indicateil l)y the specimens heretofore known. Further, the supposed 

 glandular surface of the thighs is an appearance apparently due to jjoor preser- 

 vation. The presence of long coarse hairs in the pelage in addition to the finer 

 ones in S. paradoxus may indicate a step toward the spiny condition of certain 

 other Insectivora. 



