from ''Otro Cerro," North-eastrrn Rioja. 405 



Skull: ;:^ioat«J«t length 3l"2; coii(lyli>iiici.sive longtli 28'5 ; 

 zygomatic hreadtli IG'l ; nasals ll'S ; intcrorljital hreaiitli 5-2 ; 

 hroadtli of l)rain-oa.S(3 li-2; palatilar leiigtli 14'1; palatal 

 foramina 7 ; antero-po.sterior len^tli of Ijulla on a line parallol 

 with tiie miildle axis of the skull G*4 ; uppof molar series 0'2. 



Hub. (of type). Chuml)iclia, C'atamurca. No specimens 

 in the Otro Ceno collection. 



Tifpe. A.lult male. B.M. no. 18.11.11.23. Original 

 nunibei- 262. Collect.Hl Gth July, 1918, by E. Budin. 

 Presented by Oldtield Thomas. Ten specimens exauiined. 



B^inally, the third an<l smallest species is represented by 

 half a dozen specimens from Chumbicha; but as the oldest 

 and best is iti the Otro Oerro collection, it may be described 

 as an integral part of the present paper, as follows : — ] 



8. Graomys edithce, sp. n. 



S . 380. 



Size again smaller than in G. medius, making it the 

 smallest known species of the genus. Colour about as in that 

 animal, a butfy wash on the sides rarely present. Under 

 surface white, the hairs either slaty basally or white to their 

 root.*!. Tail shorter than in mediu.9, and less heavily haired 

 terminally ; brown above, white on sides and below. 



Skull a miniature of that of the other species ; supra- 

 orbital edges witliout 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 45; 

 breadth of brain-case 13*5; palatilar length 12'8; palatal 

 foramina 6"7 ; length of bulla* 6 ; U[)per molar series 4'7. 



I/(il>. (of type). Otro Cerro ; other specimens from 

 Chumbicha. 



Ti/pe. Old male with worn teeth. B.^IM. no. 10.2.7.34. 

 Original number 380. Collected 2Gth September, 11M8. 

 Eight specimens examined. 



This interesting little Ornomt/s 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 

 Phylloiis, a poiiU on which Mr. Osgood has expressed some 

 doubt. 



