490 
DIDELPHYS PHILANDER, 
side. The extremity of the tongue, as in others of the 
genus, is fringed with sharply-pointed fleshy tubercles ; in 
/). Opossum I could perceive but one distinct row 1 2 of these 
tubercles, whilst in D. Philander there were several rows. 
The subjoined dimensions were taken from the two animals 
above alluded to. I regret it has not been in my power to 
compare individuals of the same sex. 
I). Opossum. D. Philander. 
l'r.MA 
LB. 
Malk. 
Inches. 
Lines. 
Inches. 
lines. 
Length from tip of nose to root of tail 
11 
0 
10 
0 
•* of tail 
10 
0 
12 
r» 
** of hairy portion of ditto .... 
1 
2 
2 
0 
Diameter of ditto at the root 
T J 
6 
Length from tip of nose to ear 
2 
7 
1 
11 
“ from ditto to eye . 
1 
31 
10} 
•* of car 
1 
1* 
1 
2 
Width of ditto ... . 
1 
0 
11 
Length of fore leg, from tip of elbow 
to the wrist ... ... 
2 
2 
1 
9 
44 of fore foot ... . 
H* 
11 
" of hind leg, from the knee to 
the ankle 
2 
2 
1 
10 of hind foot ... . 
1 
7 
1 
4 
Schreber8 description of D. Philander agrees so closely 
in all essential points with the two specimens from which 
my account is taken, that I cannot doubt their being the 
same animal ; and moreover I cannot but think my Z). 
Philander is specifically identical with the animal figured bv 
Seba, and which is referred to by Lin met is as his D. Philan¬ 
der* 1 . M. Temminck’s description of the male Philander 
1 This row of tubercles edges the tongue ; behind it were some others, but 
these could only be perceived wiU» a strong lens : the difference consisted in 
the tubercles forming the hinder rows in J). Philander being more developed. 
2 See Scba’s Locuplefistimi Rerum Xaturatium Thesauri accurate ilnerip- 
tio , tom. i. Plate 3G, fig. 4. Seba states in bis text (p. 57) that the female 
animal described by him ha* no pouch. Schrrber describes the Philander 
