The cliseral changes in the Central Plateau, which developed the dry belt, a barrier, might explain the evolution of a few more supraspecific groups of mammals, as indicated by the presence of similar forms in the Amazonian region and in Southeastern Brazil. Among these _Echimys_ and _Phyllomys_, in the same family with _Proechimys_, show differences that are parallel to those observed in _Proechimys_. One of these parallel changes is the increased lamination of the cheekteeth. Although _Echimys_, from the Amazonian region, has upper molariform teeth with the four laminae fused, _Phyllomys_ has the four laminae completely separated. None of the genera known from the Upper Oligocene and Miocene of Argentine deposits seems to be directly ancestral to _Proechimys_. SPECIATION The detection of differences of systematic worth between populations of animals, represented by skins and skulls, is a step preliminary to deducing the factors responsible for the differences. Ordinarily the factors which cause heritable differences have to do with geographic isolation and adaptation to ecological conditions. When differences in the structure of the animal are known, a person is led to speculate on the factors which could cause them. For one thing, does the observed degree of difference tend to isolate animals possessing the "new" character from the other animals? It would seem to me that the isolation once started by one of these differences tends to be accentuated with time and the difference itself thus then becomes a factor responsible for further differentiation. Whether or not transition from one character to another occurs gradually, in its geographic expression, and thus whether or not intergradation occurs between two subspecies, can be ascertained by the analysis of a series of population-samples appropriately distributed geographically. If two characters of systematic worth are known to blend in one part of the geographic range of a subgenus, and if the same two characters are seen in two other populations, far removed geographically from each other and without any samples of annectent populations to provide actual evidence of intergradation, then such intergradation is to be inferred. The available collections of _Proechimys_ mostly were made haphazardly with the result that there are extensive areas from which no specimens as yet are available. Thus, actual proof of intergradation is often lacking in areas where it almost certainly occurs. In some extensive areas, however, many samples, from relatively regular intervals, have been available and they provide genuine proof of intergradation. These instances have served as a guide for estimating whether other samples should be considered to be full species or instead merely subspecies of the same species.