BANGS: CHIRIQUI MAMMALIA. at 
Measurements — 
No. ex, * Total length. Hind foot Far. 
(with hoof). 
10,162 old ad. 9 1030 170 80 
10,163 type ; young ad. ¢ 860 145 76 
10,164 young Q 775 135 72 
Skull, No. 10162, old adult 9, from Boquete 5,800 feet, basal length, 197; 
occipitonasal length, 222; zygomatic width, 103; greatest width across squa- 
mosals posteriorly, 98 ; palatal length to palatal notch, 140 ; breadth of basioc- 
cipital between bullz posteriorly, 19 ; length of upper molariform series, 64. 
Remarks. —I do not give this fine new peccary as a subspecies of Tayassu 
angulatus (Cope) because the relationships of the North American forms and 
the South American 7’. tajacu are not as yet clearly understood. It is very 
different from any of the forms lately described by Doctor Merriam, and is 
even more widely separated from my 7’. torvus of the Santa Marta region of 
Colombia. The two younger specimens agree in coloration, but the old 9, 
No. 10,162, is slightly different ; the bristles of the rump are rather more annu- 
lated, and the color of the lighter rings on the bristles here and on the sides is 
paler — yellowish white instead of tawny. ‘The color of the shoulder stripes 
and the head and neck is as in the other species. It is in rather worn pelage, 
and as these differences may be due to actual fading, I select a younger indi- 
vidual, in fine pelage for the type. 
A white-lipped peccary also occurs in Chiriqui. Mr. Brown saw them sev- 
eral times, but those wounded escaped in the dense jungle. 
Odocoileus! sp. ? 
One young ¢, Boquete, 4,000 feet, April 10. This specimen is in the 
spotted pelage, and is too young to identify. The species was rare, but was well 
known to the native hunters. 
Mazama sartorii (Saussure). 
Three adults, two males anda 9, Boquete, 4,000 to 4,800 feet, March and 
April. 
Measurements — 
No. Sex, Total length. Tail vert. Hind foot. Ear. 
10,158 old ¢ 1330 at. 260 84 
10,159 old ¢ 1340 100 255 76 
10,160 old 1360 105 240 78 
1 For use of Dama instead of Odocoileus, see Allen, Bull. Am. Mus. N. H., Vol. 
XVI. pp. 18-20, Feb. 1, 1902. I amas yet not satisfied as to the correctness of Dr. 
Allen’s contention. 
