4 bulletin: museum of comparative zoology. 



related to the newly described Xesophontes of Porto Rico. It i.s, 

 however, a much smaller animal, and is likely to prove a representative 

 of still another genus, though on account of the fragmentary nature of 

 the only jaw discovered, this is still uncertain. The two other species 

 are hystricine rodents, the one a small mouse-like species, probably 

 related to Brotomys and Boromys (Miller, 191(Ja), the other a member 

 of the short-tailed group of Capromys, for which Chapman (19011 

 proposed the subgenus Geocapromys. The last species forms by far 

 the greater part of the bone fragments. 



The subgenus Geocapromys has hitherto been known from three 

 living forms only — hrownii, thuracatu.s-, and ingrahami, confined 

 respectively to Jamaica, Little Swan Island, and Plana Keys (Baha- 

 mas). The discovery of a recently extinct species in Cuba is therefore 

 important, as bridging in part the hiatus between the last two species, 

 and definitely adding Cuba to the known range of the group. A study 

 of all the living species of Capromys as at present imderstood, reveals 

 an excellent tooth character by which the .short-tailed members of the 

 group may be distinguished, namely, the presence of an additional 

 antero-internal reentrant in the enamel pattern of the first lower 

 molariform tooth (pmi). This, in addition to other cranial and 

 external characters, in part already pointed out ])y Chapman, is, 

 I think, sufficient to raise Geocapromys to generic rank, as a related 

 but more specialized group. 



In working out the relations of the Cuban Geocapromys, it became 

 necessary to consider more carefully Chapman's Capromys columhianns. 

 This was described on the basis of two subfossil fragments of the 

 maxillary with the palate, found in a cave near Trinidad, Cuba, buried 

 a few inches from the surface. Associated with these were a molar 

 (probably the last one in an upper series) and portions of bones which 

 were doubtfully referred to the same species. The molar is, without 

 much (juestion, from a species of Capromys, but Chapman's excellent 

 figure and description leave no doubt that his C. Columbian us is an 

 animal very different from other known forms of that genus. Indeed, 

 a,s I have previously suggested (1911, p. 212) it is not even congeneric. 

 Through the kindness of Mr. H. E. Anthony of the American Museum 

 of Natural History, I have lately had the privilege of examining the 

 type specimens and find my previous conclusions fully substantiated. 

 In order to bring out more clearly the peculiarities of this animal, and 

 to obviate any misconceptions of distribution that may arise through 

 considering it a fourth Cuban sjjccies of Capromys. I therefore pro- 

 pose for it a new generic term : 



