ON THE GLOSSOPHAGIN®. ZAI 
The Mexor profundus digitorum supplies second and third digits oniy. The 
Semimembranosus and Biceps femoris are absent. The tendons of the Gracilis and Semi- 
tendinosis closely approximate and give the appearance of being fused, but by gentle 
traction they can be shown to be distinct. 
Pallas first described Glossophaga soricina as haying no tail (Mise. Zodlog., 1766, 
48), the type beimg a female. He subsequently described and measured a second speci- 
men (Spicil. Zool, III, 1767, 24), a male, which he dissected. He now noted the 
presence of a short tail and figured the skeleton in which the tail is plainly 
seen. Geoffroy accepted the first description as final, and proposed a separate name 
(G. amplexicaudata) for the assumed new species possessing a tail. Gray (Ann. and Mag., 
N.58., 1858, IT, 490) acting on these erroneous premises proposed the name Phyllophora 
for Glossophaga amplexicaudata. Geryais (Expn. Amerique du Sud., 1855, 11, mem., 40) 
sustains Gray’s position without comment. Peters set the matter to rights in 1868, over 
~a hundred years after Pallas’ first simple error of observation. 
Of the elaborate measurements of Pallas those taken of the male are the most accu- 
rate and include those of the skeleton as well. The figure of the head by Geoffroy also 
conforths in vertical measurement. The width of the basal part of the nose leaf is less 
than in our figure. Pallas, Geoffroy and Spix all accurately figure the interfemoral 
membrane as approaching the ankle, certainly reaching a point below the level of the 
middle of the tibia, which is the distance given by Dobson. 
The fact that the two forms of Glossophaga differ so widely makes it desirable that 
the characters of the first recorded species be carefully noted. A review of the original 
description of Pallas is of restricted value, other than the anatomy of the soft parts, 
notwithstanding the praise Geoffroy and Dobson award it. Geoffroy states he had dis- 
sected an alcoholic specimen and confirmed Pallas’ observations. But Pallas did not note 
so conspicuous a fact that in the first digit the metacarpal bone is much shorter than the 
combined lengths of the phalanges. The cranial and dental outlines are worthless ;* but 
one cannot gainsay the value of the figure of the fimbriated and elongated tongue. 
evokes tats @ 
Synoptical Table of Genera. 
Palatal portion of premaxilla forming a rostrum in advance of median incisive foramen; 
gland mass confined to sides of nose leaf; occipito-squamosal suture without foramen; 
tympanic bulla separated from postglenoid process by a conspicuous interval; ethmoid 
; 
} bone convex in brain case; no ectopterygoid lamina; in third to fifth digits first 
| phalanx smaller than second; fimbriz: not confined to tip, but extending well back 
L 
along the tongue. 
| Glossophagina vera. 
* Gervais (1. c.) believes the form is not Glossophaga at all, but Hemidernu. 
