1915.] Allen, Review of the South American Sciuride. 195 
Microsciurus avunculus TVhomas. 
Mickoschinis avunculus THomas, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. (8), XIII, p. 574, 
June, 1914. 
Type locality— Gualaquiza, eastern Ecuador; altitude 2500 feet. 
Geographic distributton.— Known only from the type locality. 
Description.— “ Closely similar to M. napi, but markedly larger through- 
out. : 
“Size a little larger than in any described species. General colour 
above finely grizzled olive-brown, the fore back slightly greyer, the hind 
back warmer. Chest greyish ‘cinnamon-buff,’ not such a bright ochraceous 
as in M. rubrirostris; belly and inner sides of hind limbs dull tawny, toned 
down by the slaty bases of the hairs. Crown finely ticked with ochraceous, 
a little warmer than nape, more like back, not so ochraceous as in rubrirostris. 
Ears with their inner surface grizzled ochraceous; outer surface grey ante- 
riorly, with a large whitish patch posteriorly, the upper part of this patch 
buffy. Hands and feet grizzled ochraceous. Edges of tail pale buffy. 
“Skull conspicuously larger than that of napi, about as in M. rubrirostris. 
“Dimensions of the type: — Hind foot, s. u. 39, c. u. 42 mm.; ear 15. 
“Skull: tip of nasals to front of interparietal 35.5; condylo-incisive 
length 34; zygomatic breadth 23.3; nasals 11 X 4.8; interorbital breadth 
14.2; breadth of brain-case 19; palatal length 16; tooth-row (exclusive of 
p*) 6.2. 
“Hab. Oriente of Ecuador. Type from Gualaquiza; alt. 2500’. 
“Type. Young adult male. B. M. No. 14.4.25.53. Original number 
312. Collected 31st November, 1913, by Gilbert Hammond. Presented 
by Oldfield Thomas. 
“This species is in colour quite like M. napi, which occurs in the same 
region, but is so much larger, as evidenced by its skull- and tooth-measure- 
ments, that it is clearly different. It is probably most nearly related to M. 
rubricollis, the species I have always regarded as M. peruanus Allen, but 
is distinguished from both by its much duller and less contrasted under 
surface’? — Thomas, I. c. 
Specimens examined, 0. 
Remarks.— Not seen; description and comment from Thomas, given 
above in full. 
