from “Otro Cerro,” North-eastern Rioja. 495 
Skull: greatest length 31:2; condylo-incisive length 28°5 ; 
zygomatic breadth 16°L; nasals 11°8 ; interorbital breadth 5:2 ; 
breadth of brain-case 14:2; palatilar length 14°L; palatal 
foramina 7 ; antero-posterior length of bulla on a line parallel 
with the middle axis of the skull 6°4; upper molar series 5:2. 
Hab. (of type). Chumbicha, Catamarca. No specimens 
in the Otro Cerro collection. . 
Type. Adult male. B.M. no. -18. 11. 11. 23. Original 
number 262, Collected 6th July, 1918, by E. Budin. 
Presented by Oldfield Thomas. ‘len specimens examined. 
Finally, the third and smallest species is represented by 
half a dozen specimens from Chumbicha; but as the oldest 
and best is in the Otro Cerro collection, it may be described 
as an integral part of the present paper, as follows :—] 
8. Graomys edith, sp. n. 
3. 380. 
Size again smaller than in G. medius, making it the 
smallest known species of the genus. Colour about as in that 
animal, a buffy wash on the sides rarely present. Under 
surface white, the hairs either slaty basally or white to their 
roots. ‘Tail shorter than in meddus, and less heavily haired 
terminally ; brown above, white on sides and below. 
Skull a miniature of that of the other species ; supra- 
orbital edges without beading. 
Dimensions of the type :— 
Head and body 108 mm.; tail 127; hind foot 25; 
ear 20. 
Skull: greatest length 28°5 ; condylo-incisive length 26:5; 
zygomatic breadth 15; nasals 10°5 ; interorbital breadth 4:5 ; 
breadth of brain-case 13°53; palatilar length 12°8; palatal 
foramina 6°7; length of bullae 6; upper molar series 4°7. 
Hab. (of type). Otro Cerro; other specimens from 
Chumbicha. 
Type. Old male with worn teeth. B.M. no. 19.2. 7. 34. 
Original number 380. Collected 26th September, 1918. 
Hight specimens examined, 
This interesting little Graomys agrees with the larger 
species in all the essential characters of the group, and by the 
study of the whole series I am strongly confirmed as to the 
advisability of recognizing Graomys as a genus distinct from 
Phyllotis, a point on which Mr, Osgood has expressed some 
doubt. 
