7-aye Aniuzuiiiaa Muiuinals. 13i^ 



it sounds, for there is almost a perfect series of gradiitioiis 

 from (1) tiie manuosets, which iiave no trace of liypocoiic-t, 

 tliroiigli (2) Cullimico, wh'icli lias a slight rise in thecinguhuu 

 that might be called a potential hypocone, to (3) Sa'uniri, 

 which has small and simple hjpocones, and is itself again 

 separated from (4) Callicebus and other monkeys which have 

 complicated square molai's witli large hypocones and con- 

 necting commi.'isure.-j. 



3. Centroni/cten's maximiliani, Fisch. 



? . Utingu, near Para. 



This is the first example of the typical Brazilian C. mnxi- 

 m'lliani {Vespertilio calcarata, Wied, nee Kaf. ; C. wiedi, 

 Palmer) which 1 have had the opportmiity of examining, as 

 the only specimen of Centromjcteris that the British Museum 

 possessed, one from Panama, now proves to be separable (see 

 'Annals/ December 1912, p, 638). 



Members of tiie genus Centroai/cteris seem to be exceedingly 

 rare in collections, Wied^s type from Espirito Santo, a female 

 from Peru in Berlin, and the above-mentioned specimens 

 from Para and Panama being the only ones of which 1 can 

 find any record. 



4. Corniura hrevirostris, Wagn. 

 Myropteryx pullus, Miller. 



<J. 4; ? . 5. Ananindena, near Para. 



1 am not prepared to accept Mr. Miller's separation * of 

 the Surinam bats collected by Kappler from Wagner's 

 Cormura brevirostris, to which Peters, the author of the 

 genus Cormura, himself referred them. 



By the great kindness of the authorities of the Berlin and 

 Vienna Museums I have been allowed to examine (1) two 

 (adult and immature) of the four specimens from Surinam 

 typical oi Mi/ro//ieri/x 2>ui^us ; (2) the original type of Cor- 

 mura hrevirostrisy unfortunately now without skull; and 

 (3) the specimen from Baraneiva, Matto Grosso, referred by 

 Miller also to his Myropteryx j^uUus. 



Although the loss of the skull of the type of Cormura 

 hrevirostris makes it impossible to be absolutely certain in 

 the matter, 1 have come to the conclusion that, at least for 

 the present, these various specimens should all be referred to 

 a single form. 



Miller's chief reason for distinguishing Myropteryx was its 



* P. Biol. Soc. Wash. xix. p. 59 (lUOi)). 



