RECENT LITERATURE 
241 
delphis, Lipotes, Inia, and Platanista, long-beaked river-dolphins. The combina- 
tion of characters exhibited by at least three of ‘these genera has made their 
classification a matter of much controversy. While at variance with the latest 
views of Abel and of True, there is much to commend the close association of 
the other genera named with Platanista instead of making a special family for 
them. True’s final conclusion, however, was that Stenodelphis might best be 
included as a member of the Delphinidae. (5) The Delphinidse, which Winge 
believes to have branched off early in the Tertiary, from ‘‘primitive platanistids.” 
The family is a somewhat heterogeneous assemblage, and its final constitution 
is still unsettled. (6) The Physeteridae, including the ziphioids as a subfamily, 
which are supposed by Winge to have “originated from the most primitive 
delphinids” during early Tertiary time, but as no members of the latter group 
are known before the Miocene, it is not clear what the ancestry would be like. 
Although it must be confessed that the brief arguments for these “derivations” 
are not in all cases very convincing* yet the discussion brings out the fact of a 
general similarity in fundamental structure throughout the order, so that, 
although there is as yet no unanimity of opinion as to the precise relationships 
of many known genera, it does seem possible to perceive how some of the special 
peculiarities of various groups may have been evolved. An important section 
of the paper is contained in the second part — Notes, — ^which, besides brief dis- 
cussion of controversial points, contains references to the more important liter- 
ature on the order. 
The translation has been done with care, even to the reproduction of the 
author’s emendations (e.g., Rhachionectes for Rhachianectes, Xiphius for Ziphius, 
etc.), and with a view to giving “the author’s ideas as clearly and exactly as 
possible rather than to make smooth English sentences.” Much credit is due 
the translator for making this important summary now readily available in 
English. 
— Glover M. Allen. 
Osgood, Wilfred H. A Monographic Study of the American Marsupial, 
CiBNOLESTEs. Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Zool. Ser., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1-162; 22 
plates. May, 1921. 
The curious South American marsupial Ccenolestes has been the subject of 
much discussion, and has been placed in three different suborders by various 
workers who have dealt with its systematic position. Osgoods’ extended descrip- 
tive account of its anatomy, and the conclusions based on his researches are, 
therefore, of great interest to all technical mammalogists. 
The introductory sections include the general history of Ccenolestes from its 
discovery in 1860 up to the present time, what little is known of its habits, and 
an account of its external characters. Following this, in the main body of the 
work, are detailed descriptions of the myology (pp. 22-61), urogenital system, 
alimentary canal, glands, respiratory and circulatory systems (pp. 61-77), skeleton 
and teeth (pp. 77-128). Additional chapters of special interest are: The origin 
or diprotodonty, relationships of Wynyardia, relationships of Myrmecohoides, 
phylogeny and taxonomy, and dispersal of marsupials. These all show the 
intensive study, clear reasoning, and fair presentation of the subject that we have 
learned to expect in the author’s publications. A diagram of the phylogenetic 
