Classification of the Family Cichlidee. 33 
rather more ochraceous than back. Eyes surrounded by well- 
marked white rings. Chin and interramia prominently 
white. Ears of medium length, the proectote not or scarcely 
blackened at the edge terminally, extreme edges white ; 
metentote whitish. Nuchal patch large, projected backwards 
mesially, prominently contrasted deep rich hazel. Hands and 
feet white above, with an inconspicuous edging of cinnamon 
externally. Tail apparently like back above, whitish below, 
but a good example is not present on any one of these skins. 
Skull not unlike that of S. margarite, with similarly 
broadened postorbital processes, narrow palatal bridge, with 
tendency to a posterior median spine; palatal foramina 
broadened mesially and ending behind opposite the middle of 
the anterior premolar. Bulle rather large for the group. 
Dimensions of the type (measured on skin) :— 
Head and body (approximate) 420 mm. ; hind foot 77; 
ear 53. 
Skull: greatest length 76; condylo-incisive length 67 ; 
zygomatic breadth 34; nasals (oblique) 31; interorbital 
breadth 18; front of incisor to back of m* 38; palatal fora- 
mina, length 20, breadth at middle 6°2, behind 4:5; 
palatal bridge 6°5; cheek-tooth series (alveoli) 14°7. 
Hab. Purificacion, Magdalena Valley, 8.W. of Bogota. 
Type. Adult female. B.M. no. 19. 10. 15.3. Received 
in exchange from Frére Apollinaris Maria. Three specimens. 
This cotton-tail is one of a considerable number of species 
known from Colombia and Venezuela which are all rather 
closely allied, but it differs from all by its conspicuously paler 
coloration. Superficially it most resembles S. margarite, but 
is, of course, geographically distant from that animal. 
The three specimens are all absolutely alike. 
Ill. — The Classification of the Fishes of the Family 
Cichlidee.—I. The Tanganyika Genera. By C. Tate 
Reean, M.A., F.R.S. 
(Published by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum.) 
In his ‘ Catalogue of African Freshwater Fishes’ (iii. p. 134, 
1915) Boulenger has written of the Cichlidz : “ The classifica- 
tion of the very numerous African members of this family 
presents the greatest difficulties, and the division into genera, 
as here followed, is unsatisfactory and open to criticism, the 
Ann. & Mag. N. Ilist. Ser. 9. Vol. v. 3 
