92 



ARKIV FÖR ZOOLOGI. BAND 14. N:0 4. 



cate character of the bones; absence of strong crests or 

 ridges.» This does not seem to contain much to pro ve the 

 Polyprotodont affinity of Caenolestes as there are many Po- 

 lyprotodonts with qnite the opposite characteristics: thick 

 bones, well developed crests etc, and on the other hand 

 many small mammals of other orders f. i. Insectivora, Glires 

 etc. have delicate bones, no crests etc. 



For the 5th the »long and narrow» palate and the cor- 

 responding palatal vacuities are considered to speak for Po- 

 lyprotodont affinity. To this may be said that there are 

 Diprotodonts like the Kangaroos which have a long palate 

 and there are also many Polyprotodonts with a much shorter 

 palate than Caenolestes. The palatal vacuities constitute a 

 primitive characteristic, which is shared without doubt by 

 the ancestors of both groups. Long palatal vacuities are 

 also found in some Diprotodonts ef. f. i. Petrogale, Eudromicia 

 etc. In the 6th paragraph it is said, that the lower jaw is 

 »similar to Dasyurus, Phascologale and especially to Ante- 

 chinomys and Sminthopsis in infiection of angle, and propor- 

 tionate size of angle, condyle and coronoid.» It is then 

 evidently overlooked that the condyle of Caenolestes is enti- 

 rely different (ef. above) from that of Dasyurus, Phascologale 

 etc, in which latter it has the shape of a transverse cylinder, 

 and it is much more like the same of f. i. the Kangaroos. The 

 angle of the mandible is of course inflected as well in Dipro- 

 todonts as in Polyprotodonts, but its shape is variable in both 

 according to the development of the musculature, and I do not 

 think that a single distinct type can be recognized as charac- 

 teristic for either group. The same is the case with the coro- 

 noid. With regard to paragraph 7 »Rudimentary pouch, as in 

 Phascologale and Marmosa» may be said that reduction of the 

 pouch evidently has taken place independently among diffe- 

 rent Marsupials and it is a rather weak proof of affinity. 

 Paragraph 8 »Före and hind limbs about equal», does not need 

 to be discussed. The 9th paragraph »Pes non-syndactyl» is on 

 the other hand very important, but I shall return to this pre- 

 sently. As the lOth point is mentioned »Foot plantigrade — 

 resembles Phascologale in number and position of pads, and 

 short clawless hallux». It appears rather remarkable, that 

 »plantigrade» can be used as a »polyprotodont character» in 

 opposition to »diprotodont characters», considering that there 



