The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters.

No abstract

Cordimus, a new genus of cricetid rodent, is described from Neogene deposits on the islands of Curac ßao and Bonaire, Dutch Antilles. The genus is characterized by strongly cuspidate molars, the presence of mesolophs in most upper molars and the absence of mesolophids in lower molars. Similarities with the early cricetid Copemys from the Miocene of North America coupled with apparent derived characters shared with the subfamily Sigmodontinae suggest that Cordimus may be close to the root of the sigmodontine lineage, a possibility that remains to be tested through explicit phylogenetic analysis. Three species are recognized on the basis of size and details of molar morphology. Cordimus hooijeri sp. nov. is described from Bonaire on the basis of Holocene owl pellet material that consists of dentaries and postcranial material only. This species is presumed to be extinct, but focused surveys are needed to confirm this hypothesis. Cordimus debuisonjei sp. nov. and Cordimus raton sp. nov. are described from deposits on Tafelberg Santa Barbara in Curac ßao. Although the age of these deposits is not known, they are most likely of late Pliocene or early Pleistocene age. Both are represented by numerous isolated molars and some osteological material.

Recently Papagomys theodorverhoeveni was reported to be still extant on the basis of a single museum specimen. Based on comparison with extensive zooarchaeological material from Liang Bua, the identifi cation of this specimen is refuted.

A collection of 17 isolated rodent molars from a cave in the eastern part of Duivelsklip, Curaçao, Dutch West Indies, isdescribed as Dushimys larsi, new genus and species. The new species is characterized by relatively large size, broad mo-lars, absence of mesolophid and presence of anterolophid and anterolabial cingulum on m3, absence of metaloph on M3,and m2 with three roots. Phylogenetic analysis could not conclusively resolve the position of the new species, and it isprovisionally regarded as a representative of an otherwise unknown oryzomyine genus. The material is likely middle Pleistocene in age.

No abstract

The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3, 81.1 and 81.2.3 of the Code, is to conserve the name Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948 (Primates, LEMURIDAE), a genus of subfossil Malagasy lemurs, by suppressing the senior subjective synonym Palaeochirogalus Grandidier, 1899 and by designating a type species for the genus Pachylemur Lamberton. Palaeochirogalus Grandidier has never seen any substantial usage whereas Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948 is in universal use; however, Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948 is unavailable because no type species was designated in the original publication. Filhol (1874) previously used the name Pachylemur for a 'groupe' of Paleogene primates; we conclude that this name, under either Filhol's or Palmer's (1904) authorship and, in either case, ambiguous as regards availability should be formally suppressed at the genus-group level to prevent confusion. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; LEMURIDAE; Palaeochirogalus; Pachylemur; Pachylemur insignis; lemur; Madagascar.1. Filhol (1874, p. 18) introduced the name Pachylemur for a group of ancient primate-like mammals: "Ce groupe, je proposerai de le désigner sous le nom de Pachylemur, et j'y placerai le Paleolemur Bettillei, ' Adapis, ' Aphelotherium, animal dont je viens de donner la description et les divers Lémuriens signalés jusqu'ici en Amerique'. He called Pachylemur a 'groupe' (group) and 'type zoologique' (zoological type) and explicitly included genera ('genres') within the 'groupe' (also Filhol, 1874, p. 18; outside the passage quoted above). Thus he apparently did not intend Pachylemur as a generic name; the possibility remains, however, that it could be construed as a generic name proposed for a series of taxa at subgeneric level. If Pachylemur Filhol, 1874 is construed as a family-group name, it is unavailable in the absence of an available type genus and because it is not a noun in the nominative plural (Article 11.7.1.1 of the Code).

No abstract