1908.] Allen, Notes on Solenodon paradoxus. 515 



(Table III continued.) 



Space occupied by p 3 -m 3 . . . 15.3 15.5 16 12 12 12.2 



" molars ... 10 10.3 7.5 7.7 



Lower jaw, length (to angle) . . . 56.6 55 49.6 50 



" height at condyle . . . 13.5 14 12 7.3 



" " coronoid . . . 25.5 25.2 26 23 24 28 25.4 



Length of lower toothrow .... 33 36 35 32 32.4 30.5 33 



Space occupied by incisors .... 77 77 



" c- Pl _ 3 .... 15 15 14 15 



" molars .... 13 13 10 10.3 



" p 3 -m 3 .... 17 17 17.3 13.6 14 15 



In cranial characters and dentition, as long since pointed out by Peters 

 (/. c.), the two species are exceedingly distinct. S. paradoxus has a much 

 larger, heavier, and more massive skull, both relatively and absolutely, 

 in comparison with the general size of the animal, as is well shown in Plates 

 XXIX XXXI. The posterior rudiment of the zygomatic arches is much 

 more developed and ends in a long slender point, in one of the three known 

 adult skulls, but is less developed in the others. The interpterygoid fossa 

 in paradoxus is shallow, and much wider in front than posteriorly; in cu- 

 banus it is much deeper and one third to one half narrower in front than 

 posteriorly ; and the pterygoids are not only broader in cubanus but extend 

 much further back, and the hamular processes are also much more developed 

 and more posterior in position. The interorbital region is relatively much 

 broader in cubanus. In S. paradoxus the proboscis is supported at base 

 by a bony subquadrate plate, 1 5 mm. wide and 4 mm. long (in the old female; 

 slightly smaller in the somewhat younger male), which is wholly lacking in 

 S. cubanus, or merely represented by somewhat hardened or 'horny' cartilage. 

 In other features of the skull the two species show close resemblance. 



The differences in dentition are correlated with those of the skull, the 

 individual teeth being about twice as massive in paradoxus as in cubanus, 

 but have the same details of form. The intervals, however, between i 1 

 and i 2 , and between i 3 and the canine, are somewhat greater in cubanus 

 than in paradoxus. 



Neither of the two skulls of S. cubanus before me shows any palatal 

 vacuity, the palatal floor being uniformly ossified throughout (excepting, 

 of course, the usual foramina); in S. paradoxus both adult skulls show a 

 very small longitudinal vacuity in the palatines, but they look more like 

 accidental fractures than normal vacuities. As the young skull of S. para- 

 doxus has the palatines completely ossified, it seems probable that this is 

 the normal condition. The female skull of 8. paradoxus has a very large 



1 Called 'os proboscidis' by Brandt, by whom it is well described and figured. 



