548 



10. Uesperomys longicaudatus, Bennett. 



One specimen, differing in no way from the Chilian ones. 



11. H. cephalotes, Desm. sp. 



The collection contains one specimen only, which, on the authority 

 of M. Wagner, 1 here place in the genus Hesperomys. At present 

 I have not sufficiently examined the species to speak with certainty 

 as to its generic pretensions, but may observe that it is amongst 

 those species which Mr. Waterhouse considered as requiring further 

 examination. 



12. H. squamipes, Licht. sp. ; Wagn. Supp. Schrub. iii. 540. 



Mus squamipes, Brants, Muiz. 138; Fisch. Synop. 323. 



A male and female of this species, contained in the collection, 

 appear to be similar in size and colour : and of the latter Mr. Fraser 

 has the following note : — " Nose and feet flesh colour, ears darker ; 

 taken in a bag of grain in the house ; Xivaro name, 'Catipi.' " The 

 specimen differs only from others from Bolivia in having the tail a 

 little shorter. 



13. ? f 



A single specimen, in skin, from which the skull has been re- 

 moved, and appears not to have arrived with it. It is most likely a 

 species of Hesperomys, of rather large size, approaching that of H. 

 Cephalotes, and having very long and soft fnr of a deep rufous 

 colour, and a tail considerably longer than the head and body. 



14. ? 



A very young animal, probably of the genus Hesperomys. 



15. ECHIMYS CAYENENSIS, Geoff. 



A thickly-spined, and rather large example, apparently somewhat 

 more strongly tinged with rufous than the illustration given by Mr. 

 Waterhouse, or than either of those given by M. Pictet. 



16. Didelphys pusilla, Desm. Mamm. 261. 



Four specimens of this diminutive species are contained in the 

 collection, of which one only is adult. 



17. Didelphys ? 



Only one specimen, which agrees with exactness to the description 

 of a species, given by Mr. Waterhouse, as of doubtful identity with 

 D. cinerea*. It differs from the latter in having very much longer 



* I am fully aware that I am placing a pouched species in that section of the 

 genus which is characterized by a merely rudimentary pouch, or by its entire 

 absence : but the example examined by Mr. Waterhouse was a male, and we 

 know nothing about the pouch. The existence of this part in the present species, 

 and its absence in the one which it otherwise most nearly resembles, is sufficient 

 evidence of the distinctness of the two. 



