366 MU. R. I. POCOCK ON THE EXTERNAL 



Winge vE Museo Luiidi, i. pt. iii. pp. 126-135, 1888) differed 

 from Alston in some particuhirs. He referred all the Hystri- 

 comorphs to one family Hystricidcii?, which was divided into tiie 

 following subfamilies : — 



(1) Octodontini, equivalent to Alston's Octodontina; + Echino- 

 myina? ; (2) Cnpromyini, for Aulacodus, Capromys, Flagio- 

 doniia, and Mi/o^^otanius : (3) Otenodactylini, tor Cteno- 

 dactylvs, Pectinator, and Fetromys; (4) Hystricini and 

 (5) Eriomyini, equivalent to Alston's Hystricidje and 

 Chinchillidre respectively ; and (6) Dasyproctini, embracing 

 all the geneia refei^red by Alston to the Dasyproctidje, 

 Dinomyidae, and Caviidse. 



Thomas (P. Z. S. 1896, pp. 1024-1025) made the following 

 changes in Alston's system. Following Winge, he transferred 

 Fetromys from the Octodontin?e to the Ctenodactylinse, and 

 removed Ca'promys, Myocastor [ATyopotamits), and Thrynomys 

 {Aidacodus) from the Echinomyinfe to form the subfamily 

 Capromyinae. He also altered the name Echinomyinae to Lon- 

 cherinfe, gave full family-rank to the Old World and New World 

 Porcupines respectively, calling the former Hystricidfe and the 

 latter Erethizontidse and dividing this family into two subfamilies 

 — Cha^tomyinfe for Chcetomys and ErethizontinaB for Erethizoii and 

 Coen du (jSphingurtis ) . 



TuUberg (Nova Acta Sci. Upsala, (3) xviii. pp. 82-149, 1900) 

 introduced some innovations, notably the institution of two new 

 families — the Aulacodidee for Aidacodus {Thrynomys), previously 

 associated with Cap>romys and Myocastor, and the PetiomyidaB 

 for Fetromys alone, severing the latter both fi-om the Echino- 

 myida? and the Ctenodactylidse. He refused, moreover, to admit 

 the affinities of the Ctenodactylinfe with the Hystricomorphs, 

 classifying them with his Myomorph + Sciuromorph division of 

 Rodentia. He fused the two families Dasyproctidae and Caviida^ 

 of Alston into one called CaviidfB, keeping Dinomys provisionally 

 as the type of a special family till more is known abovit it. The 

 family-name Octodontidae he changed to Echinomyidse, and 

 altered Capromyinae to Myopotamini. 



Beddard's classification ('Mammalia,' pp. 487-502, 1902) 

 differed from Thomas's in I'ostoring Fetromys to a place in the 

 Octodontinae, where Alston put it, and in granting familj'^-rank 

 to the Ctenodactyline genera, Cteiiodactylus, Fectinator, and 

 Massouteria. 



Weber (Die Saug. pp. 505-507, 1904) admitted no subfamilies, 

 placing the genera in seven families as follows : — (1) Ctenodacty - 

 lidte {Clenodactylus, Fetromys, Fectinator) ; (2) Octodontidae 

 (Ctenomys, Octodon, Ahrocoma, Loncheres, Echinomys); (3) 

 Capromyidae [Capromys, Myocastor, ? Th.rijnomys) ; (4) Chin- 

 chiWidse {Chinchilla, Lagidiu7n, Lagostomits) ; (5) Caviidae {Cvelo- 

 genys, Dasyprocta, Cavia, Dolichotis, Hydrochoerus) ; (6) Erethi- 



