:e. lönnberg, mammalogy of ecuador. 23 



Condylobasal length 96,0 (102) mm 



Length of nasals mesially 14,5 (12,5) » 



Least breadth of nasals 0,3 (5,5) » 



Interorbital breadth 21,0 (19,7) » 



Tip to tip of postorbital processes 28,0 (23,5) » 



Mastoid breadth 01,0 (03,0) » 



Combined breadth of incisors 13,0 (11,3) » 



Length of p*, outer edge 13,0 (13,0) » 



Front angle of p* to back of inner lobe 11,0 (11, 0) » 



With regard to the somewhat broader interorbital region 

 than in the type this specimen approaches Lutra emerita 

 Thomas, but differs from the same by its larger carnassial, 

 although the type of L. emerita also was a male, and also by 

 the larger diameter of m^ viz. 12,8 mm in the present speci- 

 men and 11,4 mm in L. emerita according to Thomas. 



Pseiidalopex reissii Hilzheimer. 



Two fine cfj^, one from Pichincha above Quito, 12,000 

 feet altitude ^^c 1911, the other from Quito, 9,600 feet alt., 

 10/5 1913. 1 ? V2 1911, Pichincha. 



The greatest length of the male skulls is about 168 and 

 the condylobasal length 160 mm. The zygomatic breadth 

 101 mm is not much less than in P. lycoides, and consider- 

 ably more than in P. magellanicus,^ but the length of the 

 siiout (distance from orbit to tip of praemaxilla) is 70 — 72 

 mm, thus much less than in the former, but about equal to 

 the same dimension of the latter. The same relation is found 

 if the length of the maxillary tooth row, canine included, 

 of the different forms are compared. In P. reissii it is about 

 74 mm, and the same measurement is found in P. magella- 

 nicus, but in P. lycoides the same dimension is much larger 

 88 — 84 mm. On the other hand the snout of P. reissii is 

 comparatively broader. Thus the breadth across the hind 

 end of p^ is 52,5 mm, or nearly as much as in the much 

 larger P. lycoides (54,8 — 54), and much more than in P. 

 magellanicus (45). From this comparison it is apparent that 

 P. reissii is quite well differentiated from the more southern 

 members of the genus. 



^ Concerning the skulls of these two species see: Lönnberg: Remarks 

 on some South American Canidae, Ark. f. Zool. Bd 12, 1910. 



