246 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol.58. 



Torontoy, 9,500-14,000 feet, 7 (Nos. 194381-2, 194386, 194391, 

 194397-8, 194401). 



Machu Picchu, 12,000-13,000 feet, 6 (Nos. 194415-16, 194418, 

 194420-1, 194428). 



Ocobamba Valley, 9,100 feet, 4 (Nos. 194429, 194431-2, 194434). 



This animal is the prize of the collection and really represents a 

 most interesting discovery. Specim.ens of the family G oenolestidae 

 are still exceedingly rare in collections, and even if the present 

 series had been referable to the original genus Coenolestes^ they 

 would have been of great value. And this is of course still more the 

 case now that they prove to represent a second genus of this archaic 

 group. 



The recent specimens of the Coenolestidae as yet Imown are as fol- 

 lows: 



The type of Hyiacodon fuUgbiosus Tomes, Ecuador, B. M. No. 

 7,1.1.191. A young specimen preserved in spirit. This historic ex- 

 ample, described in 1863, was not accessible when I wrote my paper 

 on Coenolestes in 1895. 



Two skins (one skull only) from Gualea, Ecuador, collected in 

 1914 and presented by W. Goodfellow, Esq., B. M. Nos. 15.11.25.5-6. 

 These undoubtedly represent true fuUginosus, and are of particular 

 value, owing to the type's age and condition rendering it useless 

 for any close comparison. 



Four specimens from La Selva Estate. Bogota. Collected in 1895 

 by an Indian in the employ of Mr. G. D. Child. B. M. Nos. 96.1.7.1-3, 

 and American Museum of Natural History No. 10559, the latter 

 being the basis of Miss Dederer's paper on the genus (1909). The 

 original series of C. ohscuims, of which B. M. No. 96.1.7.1 is the 

 type. 



Eleven specimens of 6^. oh scums from the Paramo de Tama, head 

 of the Tachira Kiver, Colombia and Venezuela. Collected by W. H. 

 Osgood in February and March, 1911, and referred to by him, with 

 the promise of a subsequent paper on the subject, in the account of 

 his expedition.^ Now in the Field Museum of Natural History, 

 Chicago. 



Finally the series of Orolestes inca from Peru. 



When describing Coenolestes ohscurus I distinguished it from C. 

 fuliginosus mainly by size, but as Tomes's type proved to be young, 

 there was until recently nothing to show whether the two species 

 were or were not distinct. Now, however, I am able to state, on the 

 evidence afforded by Mr. Goodfellow's specimens, that C. ohscurus 

 has rather larger teeth than C. fuliginosus (first three molariform 

 teeth 6.2 instead of 5.5 or less) ; that it is grayer and less brown in 



'Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Publ., vol. 10, p. 38, 1912. 



