8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. I49 



large crypt for P 4 . Judging from degree of wear of DP 4 and state 

 of development of M s , the latter would have come into use prior 

 to replacement of DP 4 by P 4 . In any case DP 4 was retained rela- 

 tively much longer in Quemisia than in Elasmodontomys. In a 

 specimen of the latter with DP 4 and the crypt for P 4 in a condi- 

 tion comparable to that in the type of Quemisia gravis, M 2 is just at 

 the point of eruption (cf. Ray, 1964b, fig. ID) and, in a speci- 

 men with M 3 at the point of eruption (as in Quemisia), P 4 is al- 

 ready in full use (fig. 1A). 



I have examined the fragmentary upper incisor and the frag- 

 mentary femur referred to Quemisia from the caves near St. Michel 

 de L'Atalaye and find in them no clues to the relationships of the 

 genus. The femur is distinctive in the extreme flattening of the 

 shaft (noted by Miller 1929a, p. 24) and in the relatively large 

 size of the head (pi. 1). The referred specimens from Boca del 

 Infierno could not be located at the time of this writing. 



From the evidence at hand, I find only modest support for in- 

 clusion of Quemisia with the Heptaxodontinae and much to warrant 

 exclusion. Similar size and geographic proximity afford only 

 peripheral evidence of affinity with Elasmodontomys. The similari- 

 ties noted in occlusal pattern and in enamel thinning constitute 

 perhaps the most compelling evidence for relationship. Diphyodonty 

 at the P 4 locus is of course a primitive eutherian character re- 

 tained in most other caviomorphs. Dental development at this locus 

 in Quemisia differs in detail from that in heptaxodontines in the 

 longer retention of DP 4 in Quemisia (presaging suppression of 

 P 4 ?). The differences between Quemisia and Elasmodontomys in 

 the preserved features of the lower jaw (table 1) indicate more 

 radical divergence in their respective developmental complexes than 

 that observed within caviomorph families. 



The uncertain position of Quemisia emphasizes the eastern Carib- 

 bean distribution of heptaxodontines in that not only Cuba, but 

 now perhaps Hispaniola, is without them. Furthermore, the re- 

 lationships of the Jamaican Clidomys, Speoxenus, and Spirodontomys, 

 customarily brigaded with the Heptaxodontinae, remain to be estab- 

 lished. With regard to Clidomys, the best known of the three, An- 

 thony (1920, p. 472) has wisely stated, "it would be premature to 

 indulge in conjecture ... as to the relationships of this new genus. 

 It is significant, however, that the dentition shows Clidomys to be 

 only remotely related to the other large hystricomorphs of the West 

 Indies." In these statements I heartily concur, and, although pro- 



