Managerial Accounting Tools For Business Decision Making Canadian 4Th Edition Weygandt Solutions Manual Full Chapter PDF

Managerial Accounting Tools for
Business Decision Making Canadian

4th Edition Weygandt Solutions Manual
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://testbankdeal.com/dow
nload/managerial-accounting-tools-for-business-decision-making-canadian-4th-editio
n-weygandt-solutions-manual/
CHAPTER 7
Incremental Analysis
ASSIGNMENT CLASSIFICATION TABLE
Self-Study Brief Do It! A&B

Study Objectives Questions Exercises Review Exercises Problems
1. Describe management’s 1, 2 1, 2 17 42A, 59B

decision-making process
and the concept of
incremental analysis.
2. Identify the relevant 3, 4 3, 4 11 18, 19, 33 34A, 49B

costs in accepting an
order at a special price.
3. Identify the relevant 5 5 12 20, 21, 33 35A, 36A,

costs in a make-or-buy 37A, 43A,
decision. 47B, 49B,
52B, 53B
4. Identify the relevant costs 6 6, 7 13 22, 23, 24, 38A, 41A,

in deciding whether to 33 50B, 57B
sell or process materials
further
5. Identify the relevant costs 7 8 14 25, 26, 33 39A, 45A,

in deciding whether to 48B, 51B,
retain or replace 53B, 58B
equipment.
6. Identify the relevant costs 8, 10 9 15 27, 31, 32, 40A, 42A,

in deciding whether to 33 46A, 54B,
eliminate an unprofitable 59B, 60B
segment.
7. Determine the sales mix 9 10 16 28, 29, 30 44A, 46A,

when a company has 55B, 56B,
limited resources. 60B
_______________________________________________________________________________
Solutions Manual © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd. Unauthorized copying, distribution, or transmission of this page is prohibited.
7-1
ASSIGNMENT CHARACTERISTICS TABLE
Problem Difficulty Time
Number Description Level Allotted
(min.)
34A Prepare an incremental analysis for a special-order Moderate 20–30

decision and identify non-financial factors in the decision..
35A Prepare an incremental analysis related to a make-or-buy Moderate 30–40

decision, consider opportunity cost, and identify non-
financial factors.
36A Identify the relevant costs in an outsourcing decision. Moderate 20–30
37A Calculate the contribution margin and prepare an Moderate 20–30

incremental analysis concerning a make-or-buy decision.
38A Determine whether a product should be sold or processed Moderate 30–40

further.
39A Calculate gain or loss, and determine whether equipment Moderate 30–40
should be replaced.
40A Calculate the contribution margin and prepare an Moderate 30–40

incremental analysis for the decision whether to eliminate
divisions.
41A Prepare incremental analysis for the decision whether to Simple 20–30
sell or process materials further.
42A Calculate the contribution margin and prepare incremental Simple 20–30
analysis concerning the decision to keep or drop a product
to maximize operating income.
43A Calculate the contribution margin and prepare incremental Challenging 40–50
analysis for a make-or-buy decision.
44A Determine the sales mix with limited resources. Simple 20–30
45A Calculate contribution margin and prepare incremental Moderate 20–30

analysis for maximizing operating income and replacing
equipment.
46A Calculate contribution margin and prepare incremental Moderate 30–40

analysis for elimination of product and special order.
_______________________________________________________________________________
7-2
ASSIGNMENT CHARACTERISTICS TABLE (Continued)
Problem Difficulty Time

Number Description Level Allotted (min.)
47B Identify the relevant costs in an outsourcing decision. Moderate 20–30
48B Calculate the contribution margin and prepare an Challenging 30–40

incremental analysis for maximizing operating income and
replacing equipment.
49B Prepare incremental analysis related to a make-or-buy Moderate 30–40

decision, consider opportunity cost, and identify non-
financial factors.
50B Determine whether a product should be sold or processed Moderate 30–40

further.
51B Calculate the gain or loss, and determine if equipment Moderate 30–40
should be replaced.
52B Calculate the contribution margin and prepare differential Moderate 30–40
analysis for a make-or-buy decision.
53B Calculate the contribution margin and prepare an Moderate 30–40

incremental analysis for a make-or-buy decision.
54B Calculate the contribution margin and prepare Moderate 20–30

incremental analysis for the decision whether to eliminate
divisions.
55B Calculate the contribution margin and prepare Moderate 20–30

incremental analysis for maximizing operating income.
56B Determine sales mix with limited resources. Simple 20–30
57B Prepare incremental analysis for the decision whether to Moderate 20–30
sell or process materials further.

incremental analysis for maximizing operating income and
replacing equipment.
59B Calculate contribution margin and prepare an incremental Moderate 20–30

analysis concerning retaining or dropping a product to
maximize operating income.

incremental analysis for the elimination of a product and
_______________________________________________________________________________
7-3
special order.
_______________________________________________________________________________
7-4
© 2015
BLOOM’ S TAXONOMY TABLE

Correlation Chart between Bloom’s Taxonomy, Study Objectives and End-of-Chapter Exercises and Problems
Study Objective Knowledg Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation

For Instructor Use Only
e
*1. Describe management’s decision- BE1 E17 BE2 P42A
making process and the concept of P59B
incremental analysis.
*2. Identify the relevant costs in BE3 D11 P34A
accepting an order at a special BE4 E18 P49B
price. E19
E33
*3. Identify the relevant costs in a BE5 D12 P35A P47B
make-or-buy decision. E20 P36A P49B
E21 P37A P52B
E33 P43A P53B
*4. Identify the relevant costs in BE6 D13 P38A P50B
deciding whether to sell or process E22 P41A P57B
BE7
materials further. E23
E24
E33
deciding whether to retain or E25 P45A P53B
replace equipment. E26 P48B P58B
E33

deciding whether to eliminate E27 P42A P59B
an unprofitable segment. E31 P46A P60B
E32
E33
*7. Determine the sales mix when a BE10 D16 P44A P55B
company has limited resources. E28 P46A P56B
E29 P60B
E30
7-6
7-5
SOLUTIONS TO BRIEF EXERCISES
BRIEF EXERCISE 7-1
The correct order is:
1. Identify the problem and assign responsibility.

2. Determine and evaluate possible courses of action.
3. Make decision.
4. Review the results of the decision.
BRIEF EXERCISE 7-2
Net Income
Alternative Alternative Increase
A B (Decrease)
Revenues $160,000 $180,000 ($ 20,000)
Costs 100,000 125,000 (25,000)
Net income $ 60,000 $ 55,000 ($ 5,000)
Alternative A is better than Alternative B.
BRIEF EXERCISE 7-3

Determine incremental difference between accepting and rejecting the
order:
Incremental revenue $1,440,000

(40,000 units × ($48 × 75%) per unit)
Incremental cost:
Variable cost (40,000 units × $34* per unit) $1,360,000
Selling cost (40,000 units × $3 per unit) 120,000 1,480,000
Incremental income (loss) ($40,000)
*Variable cost per unit = $15 + $10 + ($12 × 75%)
The special order should not be accepted, as it will create a $40,000

net loss for the company.
_
7-6
BRIEF EXERCISE 7-4
Incremental revenue (40,000 units × $36 per $1,440,000

unit)
Incremental cost:
Variable cost (40,000 units × $34 per $1,360,000
unit)
Selling cost (40,000 units × $3 per unit) 120,000
Opportunity cost [40,000 × ($48 – $34)] 560,000 2,040,000
Incremental income (loss)
$(600,000)
The special order should not be accepted without any extra capacity,
as the company would lose $600,000.
BRIEF EXERCISE 7-5 Net

Income
Per Increase
Unit Make Buy (Decrease)
Number of units 10,000
Variable manufacturing $45,000 $45,000
$4.50
costs
Fixed manufacturing 30,000 $20,000 10,000
$3.00
costs
Purchase price $5.00 — 50,000 (50,000)
Total annual cost $75,000 $70,000 $5,000
It would save the company $5,000 if they were to buy the part.
7-7
Income
Process Increase
Sell Further (Decrease)
Sales per unit $62.00 $70.00 $8.00
(7.00)
Cost per unit: Variable 36.00 43.00
Cost per unit: Fixed 10.00 10.00 —
Total per unit cost 46.00 53.00 (7.00)
BRIEF EXERCISE 7-6 (Continued)
$16.00 $17.00 $1.00

Net Income per unit
The bookcases should be processed further because the incremental

revenues exceed incremental costs by $1.00 per unit.
BRIEF EXERCISE 7-7
The allocated joint costs are irrelevant to the sell or process further
decisions. If AB1 is processed further, the company will earn
incremental revenue of $60,000 ($150,000 – $90,000) and only incur
incremental costs of $50,000. Therefore, the company should process
AB1 further. If XY1 is processed further, the company will earn
incremental revenue of $40,000 ($130,000 – $90,000) but will incur
incremental costs of $50,000. Therefore, the company should sell XY1
rather than process it further.
7-8
Income
Keep Replace Increase
Equipment Equipment (Decrease)
Period of 5 years
Variable costs $3,500,000 $2,750,000 $750,000

New machine cost — 300,000 (300,000)
$3,500,000 $3,050,000 $450,000
The old factory machine should be replaced as it will save the

company $450,000 over five years.
BRIEF EXERCISE 7-9 Increase

Continue Eliminate (Decrease)
Sales $200,000 $ — $(200,000)

Variable costs 180,000 — 180,000
Contribution margin $20,000 — $(20,000)
Fixed costs 30,000 20,000 10,000
Net Income per unit $(10,000) $(20,000) $(10,000)
The division should be continued because $20,000 of contribution

margin given up is not completely offset by the savings in fixed costs.
BRIEF EXERCISE 7-10

Product A Product B
Contribution per unit $10 $12
Hours of limited resource per unit 2 3
CM per unit of limited resource $5 $4
7-9
SOLUTIONS TO DO IT! REVIEW
DO IT! REVIEW 7-11
(a) Incremental revenue from the order (6,000 × $31) $186,000

Incremental cost [6,000 × ($20 + $2)] 132,000
Increase in net income $ 54,000
(b) Corn Company should accept the special order as it would

contribute $54,000 in additional income.
DO IT! REVIEW 7-12
(a) The company should make the components, as it would cost

$28,000 more to purchase them externally.
Net
Income
Per Increase
Unit Make Buy (Decrease)
Number of units 60,000
Variable manufacturing costs $1.951 $117,000 $117,000
Fixed manufacturing costs $1.002 60,000 $40,0003 20,000
Purchase price $2.75 — 165,000 (165,000)
Total annual cost $177,000 $205,000 $(28,000)
1
Per unit variable cost ($30,000 + $42,000 + $45,000) ÷ 60,000 units
2
Per unit fixed cost $60,000 ÷ 60,000 units
3
Fixed costs reduced by one-third
(b) If the released capacity can generate additional income of $30,000,

then the company should purchase the components, as they
would increase their income by $2,000 ($30,000 – $28,000).
7-10
DO IT! REVIEW 7-13
Incremental analysis to determine processing further:
Incremental revenue from processing further ($99 – $75) $24.00

Incremental cost ($18 + $3) 21.00
Increase in contribution margin $ 3.00
La Mesa should process the tables further as it would increase their

income by $3 per unit.
DO IT! REVIEW 7-14 Net

Income
Keep Replace Increase
Printer Printer (Decrease)
Period of 4 years
Variable costs $12,000 $8,000 $4,000

Salvage value (4,000) 4,000
New machine cost — 24,000 (24,000)
$12,000 $28,000 $(16,000)
Based on the analysis the law firm should keep the old printer as it
would cost an additional $16,000 over the next four years if they
bought the new model.
DO IT! REVIEW 7-15

Increase
Sales $500,000 $ — $(500,000)
Variable costs 375,000 — 375,000
Contribution margin 125,000 — (125,000)
Fixed costs 150,000 40,000 110,000
Net Income per unit $(25,000) $(40,000) $(15,000)
If the line is discontinued, Lion will show an additional $15,000 loss.
7-11
DO IT! REVIEW 7-16
(a) If time constraints are ignored, then the corporation’s best

strategy would be to produce only the product that provides the
highest contribution margin per hour unit. As indicated below,
that would be the “Better” model.
(b) Good Better Best

Contribution per unit $30 $120 $450
Hours of limited resource per unit 0.5 1.5 6
CM per unit of limited resource $60 $80 $75
(c) As long as the Capital Corporation could sell the units, any
additional time should be used to produce more of the Better
product, as it provides the highest contribution margin per hour
of limited resource.
7-12
SOLUTIONS TO EXERCISES
EXERCISE 7-17
1. False. The first step in management’s decision-making process is
“identify the problem and assign responsibility”.
2. False. The final step in management’s decision-making process
is to review the results of the decision.
3. True.
4. False. In making business decisions, management ordinarily
considers both financial and non-financial information.
5. True.
6. True.
7. False. Costs that are the same under all alternative courses of
action do not affect the decision.
8. False. With incremental analysis, either costs or revenues or both
will change under alternative courses of action.
9. False. Sometimes variable costs will not change under alternative
courses of action, but fixed costs will.
EXERCISE 7-18
(a) Variable cost per unit = $3 ($10,000 + $30,000 + $20,000) ÷ 20,000 units
Contribution margin per unit = $1.80 ($4.80 – $3)
Incremental contribution margin (5,000 units × $1.80) $9,000

Less incremental cost:
Fixed cost 6,000
Incremental income (loss) $3,000
(b) They should accept the special order, as it will increase their net
income by $3,000.
(c) The assumptions underlying the decision is that current sales will
not be affected if Gruden accepts the offer, and they have the
capacity to produce the 5,000 additional discs.
7-13
EXERCISE 7-19
(a), Full capacity is the equivalent of 1,000,000 ($5,000,000 ÷ $5.00)

units. At the current level of 70%, an additional 200,000 units
would be within their total capacity (700,000 + 200,000 <
1,000,000).
Variable cost per unit:

Direct materials and direct labour $2.50
Variable manufacturing overhead 1.00
Variable selling expenses —
$3.50
Selling price per unit: ($3.50 + $1.00) $4.50
Incremental revenue (200,000 units × $4.50) $900,000

Incremental cost:
Variable cost (200,000 units × $3.50 per unit) 700,000
Hardy Fiber should accept the Canadian forces’ offer since it

would increase net income by $200,000.
Another approach to the solution: CF’s payment of $4.50 covers

the relevant variable costs and provides a margin of $1 per unit.
Therefore, incremental income from the sale would be $200,000
($1 x 200,000 units).
(b) Variable cost = $2.00 + $0.50 +$1.00 + $0.25 = $3.75
If they could sell one million units at $8.00, they should not
accept the CF’s offer, because for every unit they produce for the
Canadian Forces at $1.00 contribution margin, they would have to
give up $4.25 ($8.00 – $3.75) contribution margin on a sale on the
open market.
7-14
EXERCISE 7-20
(a) Income
Increase
Number of units: 50,000 Make Buy (Decrease)
Direct material ($4.00) $200,000 $200,000

Direct labour ($6.00) 300,000 300,000
Variable MOH (50% × $6.00) 150,000 150,000
Fixed MOH* 50,000 $50,000 —
Purchase price ($13.50) — 675,000 (675,000)
*Fixed MOH would not have to be included in the analysis because it

does not differ between the two alternatives.
(b) They should not purchase the shades, as it would cost them
$25,000 more than if they made them.
(c) Yes, by purchasing the shades, a total cost saving of $15,000 will
result as shown below.
Income
Increase
Direct material ($4.00) $200,000 $200,000

Direct labour ($6.00) 300,000 300,000
Variable MOH ($3.00) 150,000 150,000
Fixed MOH 50,000 $50,000 —
Purchase price ($13.50) — 675,000 (675,000)
Opportunity cost 40,000 40,000
7-15
EXERCISE 7-21
(a) (1)
Net Income
Increase
Make Buy (Decrease)
Direct materials $700,000 — $700,000
Direct labour 600,000 — 600,000
Variable overhead 200,000 — 200,000
Fixed overhead 500,000 $100,000 400,000
Purchase price — 1,600,000 (1,600,000)
Total annual cost $2,000,000 $1,700,000 $300,000
Yes. The offer should be accepted, as net income will increase by

$300,000.
(2)
Net Income
Increase
Make Buy (Decrease)
Direct materials $700,000 — $700,000
Direct labour 600,000 — 600,000
Variable overhead 200,000 — 200,000
Fixed overhead 500,000 500,000 —
Opportunity cost 200,000 — 200,000
Purchase price — 1,600,000 (1,600,000)
Total annual cost $2,200,000 $2,100,000 $100,000
Yes. The offer should be accepted, as net income will increase by

$100,000.
(b) Qualitative factors include the possibility of laying off those

employees that produced the robot and the resulting poor morale
of the remaining employees; maintaining quality standards;
ensuring that the supplier can increase/decrease their activity
levels sufficiently to meet SY Telc's activity levels should they
grow/contract; and controlling the purchase price in the future.
7-16
EXERCISE 7-22
Process Net Income
Sell Further Increase
Basic Kit Stage 2 Kit (Decrease)
Per unit selling price $30.00 $35.00 $5.00

Costs:
Material (14.00) (14.00)
Labour -0- (9.00)
Total costs (14.00) (23.00) (9.00)
Incremental revenue $16.00 $12.00 $(4.00)
Josee should not carry the Stage 2 Kits. The incremental revenue, $5,
does not cover the incremental processing costs, $9 ($18 x 0.5 hours).
Thus, she would be better off selling just the Basic kits.
EXERCISE 7-23
(a) Sales ($50,000 + $10,000 + $60,000) $120,000

Less: Joint costs 100,000
Net income $20,000
(b) Sales ($190,000 + $35,000 + $220,000) $445,000

Joint costs (100,000)
Additional costs ($100,000 + $30,000 + 150,000) (280,000)
Net income $65,000
(c) Product 12 Product 14 Product 16
Revenue of final product $190,000 $35,000 $220,000

Revenue at split-off 50,000 10,000 60,000
Incremental revenue 140,000 25,000 160,000
Less: Incremental costs 100,000 30,000 150,000
Incremental profit (loss) $40,000 $(5,000) $10,000
7-17
EXERCISE 7-23 (continued)
Products 12 and 16 should be processed further and product 14

should be sold at the split-off point.
(d) Sales ($190,000 + $10,000 + $220,000) $420,000

Joint costs (100,000)
Additional costs ($100,000 + $150,000) (250,000)
Net income $70,000
Net income is $5,000 ($70,000 – $65,000) higher in (d) than in (b)

because product 14 is not processed further, thereby increasing overall
profit $5,000.
EXERCISE 7-24 Sarco Barco Larco
Revenue of final product $310,000 $380,000 $800,000

Revenue at split-off 200,000 300,000 500,000
Incremental revenue 110,000 80,000 300,000
Less: Incremental costs 100,000 89,000 250,000
Incremental profit (loss) $10,000 $(9,000) $ 50,000
From this analysis we see that Sarco and Larco should be processed
further because the incremental revenue exceeds the incremental
costs, but Barco should be sold as is.
EXERCISE 7-25
(a) Cost $100,000

Accumulated depreciation ($100,000 ÷ 5 years) × 1 20,000
Book value 80,000
Sales proceeds 40,000
Book loss on sale $ 40,000
7-18
EXERCISE 7-25 (Continued)
(b) Net
Income
Retain Replace Increase
Scanner Scanner (Decrease)
Annual operating cost
(over 3 years) (1) $315,000 *$225,000 $90,000
New scanner cost 110,000 (110,000)
Old scanner salvage (40,000) 40,000
Total $315,000 $295,000 $20,000
(1)
Retain: 3 years x $105,000 ; Replace: 3 years x ($105,000 -
$30,000)
Yes. Riverside Hospital should replace the old scanner because it

will result in a total savings of $20,000 over the next four years.
(c) As shown in (a) above, replacing the old scanner will result in
reporting a book loss of $40,000. Reluctance to report losses of
this nature is the usual reason for not recognizing that a poor
decision was made in the past. The remaining book value of the
old scanner ($80,000) is a sunk cost. It will be deducted in the
future if the scanner is retained, or written off now if it is replaced.
However, if it is replaced now, that cost will be partially offset by
the salvage value that Alliant is willing to pay ($40,000).
EXERCISE 7-26
Net Income
Retain Replace Increase
Computer Computer (Decrease)
Annual operating costs $125,000 $100,000 $25,000

New computer cost 25,000 (25,000)
Salvage for old computer (6,000) 6,000
Total $125,000 $119,000 $ 6,000
7-19
The current computer should be replaced. The incremental analysis

shows that net income for the five-year period will be $6,000 higher by
replacing the current computer.
EXERCISE 7-27
Net Income
Increase
Sales $96,200 $ -0- $(96,200)

Variable costs ($70,000 + $15,000) 85,000 -0- 85,000
Contribution margin 11,200 -0- (11,200)
Fixed costs ($6,470 + $28,600) 35,070 35,070 -0-
Net income (loss) $(23,870) $(35,070) $(11,200)
Nicole is incorrect. The incremental analysis above shows that net

income will be $11,200 less if the Erie Division is eliminated. This
amount equals the contribution margin that would be lost through
discontinuing the division. (Note: None of the fixed costs can be
avoided, therefore the amount does not differ between alternatives,
making it irrelevant.)
EXERCISE 7-28
(a) Product Product Product C

A B
Selling price $9.00 $12.00 $14.00

Less: variable costs & expenses 3.00 9.50 12.00
Contribution margin per unit $6.00 $2.50 $2.00
Limited resources used 2 hrs 1 hr 2 hrs
CM per unit of limited resources $3.00 $2.50 $1.00
7-20
(b) All additional machine hours should be used to produce Product

A, as they can earn the highest amount ($3.00) per hour making
that product.
(c) (1) If machine hours were allocated equally, each product would
have 500 machine hours for production. This would result in a
total contribution as follows:
Product A ($3.00 × 500 hours) $1,500

Product B ($2.50 × 500 hours) 1,250
Product C ($1.00 × 500 hours) 500
Total contribution margin $3,250
(2) If all the machine hours were allocated to the product with the
highest contribution margin per unit of limited resource (Product
A), the total contribution margin would be $4,500 ($3.00 × 1,500
hours).
EXERCISE 7-29
(a) Basic Deluxe
Selling price $40.00 $52.00

Less: variable costs 18.00 24.00
Contribution margin per unit $22.00 $28.00
Limited resources used 0.5 hrs 0.7 hrs
CM per unit of limited resources $44.00 $40.00
(b) All additional machine hours should be used to produce the

Basic product, because they can earn the highest amount
($44.00) per hour of limited resource making that product.
7-21
(c) (1) If the machine hours were allocated equally between both
products, each product would have 500 machine hours for
production. This would result in a total contribution as follows:
Basic ($44.00 × 500 hours) $22,000

Deluxe ($40.00 × 500 hours) 20,000
(2) If all the machine hours were allocated to the product with the
highest contribution margin per unit of limited resource (Basic),
the total contribution margin would be $44,000 ($44.00 × 1,000
hours).
EXERCISE 7-30
(a) Product A Product B Product C
Units produced per machine hour 10 12 14

Number of hours per unit 0.10 0.0833 .0714
(b) Product A Product B Product C
Selling price $25.00 $35.00 $45.00

Less: variable costs 15.00 27.00 37.00
Contribution margin per unit $10.00 $ 8.00 $ 8.00
Limited resources used 0.10 hrs 0.08 hrs 0.07 hrs
CM per unit limited resources $100.00 $100.00 $114.29
(c) Determine how many of each product to produce:
Total hours available 100.00

Less: hours to produce C (200 × 0.0714) 14.28
Hours available for producing A & B 85.72
Less: hours to produce A (200 × 0.10) 20.00
7-22
Hours available for producing B 65.72
Each unit of B takes .0833 hours 0.0833
Number of units of B 788.96
Calculate total contribution margin:
Units CM/unit Total CM

Product A 200 $10.00 $2,000
Product B 789 $8.00 6,312
Product C 200 $8.00 1,600
7-23
EXERCISE 7-31
(a) 10,000 units Incremental
Make Buy Costs
Direct materials $40,000 — $(40,000)
Direct labour 30,000 — (30,000)
Variable overhead 15,000 — (15,000)
Fixed overhead 14,000 9,000 (5,000)
Opportunity cost* 25,000 — (25,000)
Purchase price — 120,000 120,000
*Sales of 1,000 units × ($100 – $75)
(b) Management should decide to make the units as it would cost an

additional $5,000 if they were to buy them externally.
(c) If Montel could use the facilities to make 2,000 units, then their
opportunity cost would increase to $50,000 [2,000 × ($100 – $75)].
Thus, if they were to buy the subcomponent from International,
their income would increase by $20,000 ($149,000 – $129,000).
EXERCISE 7-32
(a) Current net income is $40,000 + $55,000 – $30,000 = $65,000

(b) Allocate common fixed costs based on sales:
Stunner: ($320,000 ÷ $800,000) × $300,000 = $120,000
Double-Set: ($480,000 ÷ $800,000) × $300,000 = $180,000
Double-
Stunner Set Total
Sales $320,000 $480,000 $800,000
Variable costs 160,000 200,000 360,000
Contribution margin 160,000 280,000 440,000
2
Fixed costs 250,000 405,000
1
155,000
Net income (loss) $5,000 $30,000 $35,000

1$120,000 + $35,000 2$180,000 + $70,000
_
7-24
(c) As shown in the analysis above, Clarington should not eliminate

the Mega-Power product line. Elimination of the line would cause
net income to drop from $65,000 to $35,000. The reason for this
decrease in net income is that elimination of the product line
would result in the loss of $70,000 of contribution margin while
saving only $40,000 of fixed expenses.
EXERCISE 7-33
1. Irrelevant. Unavoidable costs will be incurred regardless of the

decision made.
2. Relevant.
3. Irrelevant. This is a sunk cost and all sunk costs are irrelevant.
4. Irrelevant. These are sunk costs.
5. Relevant.
6. Relevant.
7. Relevant.
8. Relevant.
9. Irrelevant. If there is no change in the direct materials charge
regardless of the decision made, the cost is irrelevant.
10. Relevant.
7-25
SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS—SET A
PROBLEM 7-34A
(a) Calculate per unit cost for the relevant costs:
Variable COGS: ($3,150,000 – $900,000) ÷ 90,000 units = $25.00

Variable S & A: ($360,000 – $162,000) ÷ 90,000 units = $2.20
Calculate the incremental income (loss) from the special order:
Incremental revenue (9,000 units × $30 per unit) $270,000

Incremental cost:
Variable COGS (9,000 × $25.00 per unit) $225,000
Variable S & A (9,000 × $2.20 per unit) 19,800
Additional S & A (9,000 × $0.50 per unit) 4,500 249,300
(b) Yes, the special order should be accepted because net income
will increase by $20,700.
(c) Unit selling price = $25.00 (variable manufacturing costs) + $2.70

variable selling and administrative expenses + $5.00 net income =
$32.70.
(d) Non-financial factors to be considered are: (1) possible effect on

domestic sales, (2) possible alternative uses of the unused plant
capacity, and (3) ability to meet customer’s schedule for delivery
without increasing costs.
7-26
PROBLEM 7-35A
(a) Net
Income
Increase
Direct material ($4.80) $38,400 $38,400
Direct labour ($4.30) 34,400 34,400
Indirect labour ($0.43) 3,440 3,440
Utilities ($0.40) 3,200 3,200
Fixed costs 5,200 $1,700 3,500
Freight costs ($0.35) — 2,800 (2,800)
Receiving costs — 1,300 (1,300)
Purchase price ($10.00) — 80,000 (80,000)
(b) The company should continue to make WISCO because net

income would be $1,160 less if WISCO was purchased from the
supplier.
(c) The decision would be different. Because of the opportunity
cost of $3,000, net income will be $1,840 higher if WISCO is
purchased as shown below:
Net Income
Increase
(Decrease)
Make Buy
Total annual cost (from a) $84,640 $85,800 $(1,160)
Opportunity cost 3,000 --- 3,000
Total annual cost $87,640 $85,800 $ 1,840
(d) Non-financial factors include: (1) the adverse effect on employees
if WISCO is purchased, (2) how long the supplier will be able to satisfy
the Borealis Manufacturing Company’s quality control standards at
the quoted price per unit, and (3) whether the supplier will deliver the
units when they are needed by Borealis.
7-27
PROBLEM 7-36A
(a) Net
Income
Out- Increase
Number of hours: 3,000 In-house source (Decrease)
Cleaning supplies ($4) $12,000 $12,000
Direct labour ($30) 90,000 90,000
Variable OH ($1) 3,000 3,000
Fixed costs 50,000 $25,000 25,000
Purchase price ($48) — 144,000 (144,000)
Total cost $155,000 $169,000 $(14,000)
Jenson College should not outsource the services, as it would

cost them an additional $14,000.
(b) Jenson would be indifferent at the point where the total cost for in-
house is the same as the total cost for outsourcing. This can be
expressed in the form of an equation:
$35X + $50,000 = $48X + $25,000
13X = $25,000
X = 1,923 hours
(c) Some qualitative factors that Jenson should consider are:

1. whether the external workers have the right skills to
provide quality services;
2. whether Jenson could find someone to provide the
services if this service didn’t work out;
3. what the consequences would be if demand for the
services increased, and they did not have enough
capacity to meet the demand;
4. whether Jenson will be able to exercise control over the
quality of the outsourced service;
5. whether Jenson would be able to handle interruptions in
the outsourced service.
7-28
PROBLEM 7-37A
(a) Net
Income
Increase
Direct material ($70) $70,000 $70,000
Material handlings ($8) 8,000 8,000
Direct labour ($50) 50,000 50,000
Variable OH ($61) 61,000 61,000
Fixed OH ($61)1 61,000 $61,000 —
Purchase price ($220) — 220,000 (220,000)
Total cost $250,000 $281,000 $ (31,000)
1
$130.00 – $8.00 = $122.00 × 50% each for variable and fixed
As long as the company has the idle capacity, they would be
better off making IMC2.
(b) In order for Interdesign to make an accurate decision, they would
have to know the opportunity cost of manufacturing the other
product. As determined in (a), purchasing the product from
outside would cost $31,000 more. Interdesign would have to
increase their contribution margin by more than $31,000 through
the manufacture of the other product, before it would be
economical for them to purchase the IMC2 from the outside
vendor.
(c) Qualitative factors to consider would be (1) quality of the

component, (2) on-time delivery, and (3) reliability of the vendor.
7-29
PROBLEM 7-38A
(a) (1) Table Cleaner Not Processed Further

Sales:
FloorShine (18,000 × $20) $360,000
Table Cleaner (9,000 × $25) 225,000 $585,000
Costs:
CDG costs 210,000
Additional costs of FloorShine 250,000 460,000
Gross profit $125,000
(2) Table Cleaner Processed Further

Sales:
FloorShine (18,000 × $20) $360,000
Table Stain Remover (9,000 × $20) 180,000
Table Polish (9,000 × $20) 180,000 $720,000
Costs:
CDG costs 210,000
Additional costs of FloorShine 250,000
TCP 120,000 580,000
Gross profit $140,000
(3) Management did not make the correct decision because if

they had processed the table cleaner further, gross profit
would have increased by $15,000.
(b)
Don’t Net Income
Process Process Increase
Further Further (Decrease)
Incremental revenue $225,000 $360,000 $135,000
Incremental costs — 120,000 (120,000)
Totals $225,000 $240,000 $15,000
When trying to decide if the table cleaner should be processed further

into TSR and TP, only the relevant data need be considered. All of the
costs that occurred prior to the creation of the table cleaner are sunk
costs and can be ignored.
7-30
PROBLEM 7-39A
(a) Cost $120,000

Accumulated depreciation ($120,000 ÷ 6 yrs) × 1 yr 20,000
Book value 100,000
Sales proceeds (25,000)
Book loss on sale $75,000
(b) (1) Retain Old Elevator
Sales ($240,000 × 5 yrs.) $1,200,000

Less costs:
Variable operating costs $175,000
Fixed operating costs 115,000
Selling & administrative 145,000
Depreciation 100,000 535,000
Net income $ 665,000
(2) Replace Old Elevator
Sales $1,200,000
Less costs:
Variable operating costs $60,000
Fixed operating costs 42,000
Selling and administrative 145,000
Depreciation 180,000 427,000
Operating income 773,000
Less: Loss on old elevator 75,000
Net income $698,000
7-31
PROBLEM 7-39A (Continued)
(c) Net
Retain Replace Income
Old Old Increase
Elevator Elevator (Decrease)
Variable operating costs $175,000 $60,000 $115,000
Fixed operating costs 115,000 42,000 73,000
New elevator cost — 180,000 (180,000)
Salvage on old elevator — (25,000) 25,000
Totals $290,000 $257,000 $33,000
(d) MEMO
TO: Cab Calway
FROM: Student
SUBJECT: Relevant Data for Decision to Replace Old Elevator
When deciding whether or not to replace any old equipment, the

analysis should only include cost data relevant to the replacement
decision. The $75,000 book loss on disposal that would be
experienced if we replace the old elevator with the newer model is
related to a sunk cost, namely the cost of the old elevator. Sunk costs
are irrelevant in decision making.
The loss occurs when comparing the book value of the old elevator to
the cash proceeds that would be received. The book value of $100,000
would be deducted as depreciation expense over the next five years if
the elevator were retained. If the elevator is replaced with the newer
model the book value will be expensed in the current year, less the
cash proceeds received on disposal. Therefore, in total, the $100,000
book value will be expensed under either alternative, making it
irrelevant.
7-32
PROBLEM 7-40A
(a) First determine variable costs:

Division III—COGS 75% × $270,000 = $202,500
S&A 65% × $65,000 = $42,250
Division IV—COGS 90% × $150,000 = $135,000
S&A 70% × $70,000 = $49,000
Div. III Div. IV

Sales $310,000 $180,000
Variable costs 244,750 184,000
Contribution margin $65,250 $ (4,000)
(b) First determine fixed costs:

Division III—COGS 25% × $270,000 = $67,500
S&A 35% × $65,000 = $22,750
Division IV—COGS 10% × $150,000 = $15,000
S&A 30% × $70,000 = $21,000
Income
Keep Shut Increase
Division III: Div III Div III (Decrease)
Contribution margin $65,250 — $(65,250)
Fixed costs 90,250 $45,125 45,125
Totals $(25,000) $(45,125) $(20,125)
Income
Keep Shut Increase
Division IV: Div IV Div IV (Decrease)
Contribution margin $ (4,000) — $4,000
Fixed costs 36,000 $18,000 18,000
Totals $(40,000) $(18,000) $22,000
7-33
Division III should be continued because it is producing positive contribution

margin of $65,250. Savings in fixed costs are not large enough to cover this
loss in contribution margin, so Ribeiro would see a $20,125 decrease in
income if they closed Division III. However, Division IV should be eliminated
as it has a negative contribution margin of $4,000. Income from operations
would increase by $22,000 if Division IV is eliminated.
(c) First determine variable and fixed costs for Div I & Div II
Division I— Variable COGS: 70% × $300,000 = $210,000

Variable S&A: 40% × $60,000 = $24,000
Fixed COGS: 30% × $300,000 = $90,000
Fixed S&A: 60% × $60,000 = $36,000
Division II— Variable COGS: 90% × $250,000 = $225,000

Variable S&A: 50% × $80,000 = $40,000
Fixed COGS: 10% × $250,000 = $25,000
Fixed S&A: 50% × $80,000 = $40,000
Each division will have an additional fixed cost charge of $6,000 ($18,000 ÷ 3),
which is an equal share of the unavoidable fixed costs from Division IV.
RIBEIRO MANUFACTURING COMPANY

CVP Income Statement
For the Quarter Ended March 31, 2016
Div I Div II Div III Total

Sales $510,000 $390,000 $310,000 $1,210,000
Variable costs 234,000 265,000 244,750 743,750
Cont. Margin 276,000 125,000 65,250 466,250
Fixed costs 132,000 71,000 96,250 299,250
Net Income $144,000 $54,000 $(31,000) $167,000
7-34
d) Income from operations with Division IV of $145,000 (given) plus
incremental income of $22,000 from eliminating Division IV =
$167,000 income from operations without Division IV.
7-35
PROBLEM 7-41A
(a) The costs that are relevant in this decision are the incremental
revenues and the incremental costs associated with processing
the material past the split-off point. Any costs incurred up to the
split-off point are sunk costs, and therefore, irrelevant to this
decision.
(b) Revenue after further processing:
Product A—$45,000 (3,000 units × $15.00 per unit)
Product B—$97,200 (6,000 units × $16.20 per unit)
Product C—$43,200 (2,000 units × $21.60 per unit)
Revenue at split-off:
Product A—$30,000 (3,000 units × $10.00 per unit)
Product B—$69,600 (6,000 units × $11.60 per unit)
Product C—$38,800 (2,000 units × $19.40 per unit)
A B C
Incremental revenue $15,000 $27,600 $4,400
Incremental cost 14,000 16,000 9,000
Increase (decrease) in profit $ 1,000 $11,600 $(4,600)
Products A and B should be processed further.
(c) The decision would remain the same. It does not matter how the
joint costs are allocated because joint costs are irrelevant to this
decision.
7-36
PROBLEM 7-42A
Calculation of contribution margin per unit:

A B C
Selling price per unit $95 $75 $115
Less: variable costs/unit 50 40 40
Contribution margin/unit $45 $35 $ 75
Company profit with Products A and B:

A B Total
Units sold 9,000 20,000
Sales Revenue $855,000 $1,500,000 $2,355,000
Less: variable costs 450,000 800,000 $1,250,000
Contribution margin $405,000 $700,000 1,105,000
Less: fixed costs [$22 × (9,000 + 20,000)] 638,000
Net Profit $467,000
Company profit with Products A and C:

A C Total
Units sold 9,900* 10,000
Sales Revenue $940,500* $1,150,000 $2,090,500
Less: variable costs 495,000* 400,000 895,000
Contribution margin $445,500 $750,000 1,195,500
Less: fixed costs [$22 × (9,000 + 20,000)] 638,000
Net Profit $557,500
*Product A sales increase by 10%
Assuming fixed costs do not change, Straus Company should replace

Product B with Product C. The contribution given up by dropping
Product B is more than covered by the increased contribution margin
from Product A, and the total from Product C:
($445,500 + $750,000) – ($405,000 + $700,000) = $90,500.
7-37
PROBLEM 7-43A
(a) Net
Income
Increase
Based on one box of 24 Make Buy (Decrease)
Direct material $6.00 $4.80 $1.20

Direct labour 4.00 3.60 0.40
Variable OH* 1.50 1.35 0.15
Purchase price — 1.90 (1.90)
Total cost $11.50 $11.65 $(0.15)
*Variable overhead per unit = [(100,000 × $3.00) – $150,000] ÷ 100,000
Kamloops should make the tube because it would cost them

$15,000 (100,000 × $0.15) more to purchase them.
(b) The maximum purchase price would be $1.75, the amount that
would make the cost of the two alternatives equal: ($11.50 –
$11.65 + $1.90)
(c) (1) Purchase all the tubes (125,000 × $1.90) $ 237,500
(2) Produce the tubes (125,000 × $1.75*) 218,750

Plus: rent on new machine 10,000
Total annual cost $ 228,750
Advantage of producing their tubes is $8,750.
*$1.20+0.40+0.15=1.75
7-38
(d) (1) Purchase all the tubes (125,000 × $1.90) $237,500
(2) Produce the tubes (125,000 × $1.75) $218,750

Plus: rent on new machine 10,000
Total annual cost $228,750
(3) Produce 100,000 tubes (100,000 × $1.75) $175,000

No rental equipment required —
Purchase 25,000 tubes (25,000 × $1.90) 47,500
$222,500
Of the three alternatives, the least expensive would be

to produce the first 100,000 units, and then purchase the
additional 25,000 from the outside vendor.
(e) Qualitative factors to consider:

• Control over the quality of the tube
• Convenient delivery schedules
• Control over future price increases
7-39
PROBLEM 7-44A
(a) Calculation of contribution margin per unit:

E. S. D.
Contribution margin/unit $18 $32 $58
Ignoring the machine constraint, Manning would focus on

producing the Deluxe model, which has the largest contribution
margin per unit.
(b) Calculation of contribution margin per unit of

constrained resource:
E. S. D.
Machine hours per unit 0.5 0.8 1.6
CM per machine hour $36 $40 $36.25
(c) If additional machine time was available, it should be used to

produce the Standard model, which has the highest contribution
margin per machine hour, which is the constraining resource.
7-40
PROBLEM 7-45A
First calculate the per unit contribution for both scenarios:

Retain Old Machine
Per unit selling price ($280 × 1.05) $294
Less costs:
Direct materials $25
Direct labour ($45 × 1.20 × 4 hr) 216
Variable overhead 16 257
Contribution margin per unit $37
Replace Old Machine
Per unit selling price ($280 × 1.05) $294
Less costs:
Direct materials $25
Direct labour ($45 × 1.20 × 3 hr) 162
Variable overhead ($4 × 3 hr) 12 199
Contribution margin per unit $95
Then determine total contribution margin over 5 years:

Retain Old Equipment $37 × 50,000 × 5 years = $9,250,000
Replace Old Equipment $95 × 52,000 × 5 years = $24,700,000
Finally, complete the incremental analysis: (in millions)

Retain Replace Net Income
Old Old Increase
All figures are in millions Machine Machine (Decrease)
CM for 5 years $9.250 $24.700 $15.450

New machine cost ($3.500) ($3.500)
Salvage for old machine 0.085 0.085
Salvage for new machine 0.075 0.075
New operator for 5 years (0.600) (0.600)
($120,000 × 5 years)
Total $9.250 $20.760 $11.510
The company will increase its profits by $11,510,000
over 5 years if it opts to purchase the new machine.
_
7-41
PROBLEM 7-46A
(a) Calculation of contribution margin per unit:

Product
Based on 1,000 units each A B C
Product C should not be eliminated because it is contributing

$15,000 (1,000 × $15) towards fixed costs and profit.
(b) Calculation of CM per limited resource:

Product
A B C
Machine hours per product 7 5 5
CM per machine hour $5 $7 $3
The company should produce product B because it has the largest

contribution margin per constrained resource (machine hours).
(c) If the company could sell unlimited quantities of any of the

three products, they would only sell Product B, as this
product has the highest CM per MH. To produce C they
would have to cut down on production of B.
7-42
Opportunity cost of producing C:
500 units × 5 hours per unit = 2,500 machine hours required
2,500 hours taken away from B: 2,500 × $7 = $17,500
$17,500 ÷ 500 units = $35 per unit
The minimum selling price would be the variable costs per

unit plus opportunity cost = $90 + $35 = $125.
(d) Determine sequence of production:

Product
A B C
CM per machine hour $5 $7 $3
Sequence of production (2) (1) (3)
Total hours available 17,000

First produce 500 units of each
500 × (7 + 5 + 5) (8,500)
Hours remaining 8,500
Produce 1,000 units of B (5,000)
Hours left for A 3,500
Produce 500 units of A (3,500)
Hours remaining —
They should produce 1000 units of A (500 + 500);

1,500 units of B (500 + 1,000); and 500 units of C.
7-43
SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS—SET B
PROBLEM 7-47B
(a) Net
Income
Out- Increase
Number of hours: 4,000 In-house source (Decrease)
Cleaning supplies ($5) $20,000 $ 20,000
Direct labour ($32) 128,000 128,000
Variable OH ($2) 8,000 8,000
Fixed costs 40,000 $10,000 30,000
Purchase price ($54) — 216,000 (216,000)
Total cost $196,000 $226,000 $(30,000)
Vanes College should not outsource the services as it would cost

them an additional $30,000.
(b) Vanes would be indifferent at the point where the total cost for in-
house is the same as the total cost for out-sourcing. This can be
expressed in the form of an equation:
$39X + $40,000 = $54X + $20,000
15X = $20,000
X = 1,333 hours
(c) Some qualitative factors that Vanes should consider are:

1. Whether the external workers have the right skills to
provide quality services;
2. Whether Vanes could find someone to provide the
services if this service didn’t work out;
3. What the consequences would be if demand for the
services increased, and they did not have enough
capacity to meet the demand;
4. Whether Vanes will be able to exercise control over the
quality of the outsourced service; and
5. Whether Vanes would be able to handle interruptions in
the outsourced service.
7-44
PROBLEM 7-48B
(a) A10 A20 A30 A40

Total CM $265,000 $450,000 $263,000 $525,000
# of units 1,000 250 750 600
CM per unit $265.00 $1,800.00 $350.67 $875.00
MH per unit 2.0 4.0 1.5 3.0
CM per MH $132.50 $450.00 $233.78 $291.67
Sharp Aerospace should produce only A20, because it has the

highest contribution margin per constrained resource (machine
hours).
(b) Number of machine hours required: Rank Total 90%

North Plane—A10 (1,000 × 2.0 hrs) (4) 2,000 1,800
North Plane—A20 (250 × 4.0 hrs) (1) 1,000 900
North Plane—A30 (750 × 1.5 hrs) (3) 1,125 1,013
North Plane—A40 (600 × 3.0 hrs) (2) 1,800 1,620
Polaris—A10 (200 × 2.0 hrs) 400
Total hours required for maximum production 6,325
Total capacity of machine hours available 6,000

Start by producing 90% for North Plane
Produce 90% of A20 (225 units) 900
Produce 90% of A40 (540 units) 1,620
Produce 90% of A30 (675 units) 1,013
Produce 90% of A10 (900 units) 1,800 5,333
Machine hours remaining 667
Produce A10 for Polaris (200 units) 400
Balance remaining 267
Sharp Aerospace can accept the order as it has sufficient capacity to

make the units for Polaris and meets its commitment to North Plane.
7-45
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
wohl an genügendem Materiale weiter zu untersuchen (s.
B u r m e i s t e r Tarsius 1846, 17 u. 126 und W e b e r 265).
Eine jetzigen Anforderungen entsprechende Abbildung 3 von T.

fuscus giebt es nicht; ich hoffe eine, die sich der von T. philippensis
auf Tafel IV zur Seite stellt, bei anderer Gelegenheit bieten zu
können. (Vgl. F i s c h e r : Anat. Maki 1804 T. III, Skelet IV u. V;
B u r m e i s t e r : Tarsius 1846 T. 2 u. 7 f. 8–14, Skelet; S c h l e g e l :
Handleiding 1857 pl. I, 9; Cassels Nat. Hist. I, 249 s. a.)
Die Schwanzbeschuppung kommt, wie wir sehen werden, wohl bei

T. sangirensis, bemerkenswertherweise aber nicht bei T. spectrum
und philippensis vor. (S., ausser bei W e b e r l. c., d e M e i j e r e :
Haren der Zoogdieren, Diss. 1893, 46 u. 119 und R e h : Verh. Ntw.
Ver. Hamburg 3. F. I, 35 1893 u. Jena. Zeitschr. 29, 189 u. 190 1894,
wo sich eine interessante Zusammenstellung des Vorkommens von
Schuppen bei den Säugethierordnungen findet.)
W e b e r nannte die Art fuscomanus, da aber F i s c h e r (Maki 1804,

37) „fuscus s. fuscomanus“ sagt, so ist der erste Name der
berechtigtere. [9]
1 Te i j s m a n n (Natuurk. Tijdschr. Nederl. Ind. 38, 77 1879) glaubt, dass das

Thierchen hier podi heisse. ↑
2 Ob W a l l a c e (Geogr. Verbr. D. A. I, 496 1876) die Insel Manado tua meinte,
als er sagte: „Soll auch auf einer kleinen Insel an der Nordspitze von Celebes
vorkommen“? (S. auch Is. life 1880, 427.) In seinem Mal. Arch. (1869) hatte er das
in der Minahassa gar nicht seltene Thier nicht näher localisirt, im 2. Bde. der
Geogr. Verbr. (p. 201) dagegen hiess es, dass es „auf einigen Theilen von
Celebes“ gefunden werde. (Vgl. auch J e n t i n k in T. Aardr. Gen. 2. s. VI, 247
1889 und c. S c h u i l i n g 251.) ↑
3 Man findet bei B u r m e i s t e r : Tarsius 1846, 3 alle bis dahin vorhandenen
aufgezählt. ↑
[Inhalt]
7. Tarsius sangirensis n. sp.
Tarsius T. fusco Fisch.-Waldh. simillimus, sed cauda minus pilosa et

tarsis fere nudis.
Hab. In insulis Sangi.
Alle mir bekannten Exemplare 1 von den Sangi Inseln weichen durch
den weniger behaarten Schwanz und die wenig behaarten Tarsen
von dem gleich grossen T. fuscus ab, sie nähern sich also darin der
Philippinen-Form mit ihrem ganz spärlich und kurz behaarten (und
unbeschuppten) Schwanz und ihren so gut wie nackten Tarsen,
während fuscus gut behaarte Tarsen und einen sehr stark behaarten
Schwanz hat. Die langen und dunklen Haare des Schwanzes
reichen bei sangirensis proximal nicht so weit und die Haare sind
kürzer. Die Beschuppung ist dieselbe wie bei fuscus. Das Museum
besitzt ein Exemplar von Siao und eins von Gross Sangi, das
Berliner, Wiener und Braunschweiger je eins von Gross Sangi
(erstere 4 aus meinen Sammlungen, letzteres von Dr. P l a t e n ) mit
denselben Charakteren, 2 das Leidener (Cat. XI, 81 1892) eins von
„Sangi“, von dem Dr. J e n t i n k so freundlich war mir mitzutheilen,
dass der Schwanz und der Tarsus weniger behaart seien als bei
Celebes Exemplaren. Es liegt hierin also eine insulare Abweichung
und eine Hinneigung zur Philippinen Form. Ich hoffe später eine
Abbildung der Art geben zu können.
1 Vgl. Abh. Mus. Dresden 1894/5 Nr. 1 p. 1. ↑

2 Prof. W . B l a s i u s und Dr. v. L o r e n z hatten die Güte, sie mir zum Vergleich
einzusenden, das Berliner Exemplar sah ich an Ort und Stelle wieder. ↑
[Inhalt]
8. Tarsius philippensis A. B. Meyer
Tafel IV
Ich beschrieb diese Art Abh. Mus. Dresden 1894/5 Nr. 1 und habe
dem Gesagten wenig hinzuzufügen, da die Abbildung in n. Gr. zur
weiteren Erkennung der Merkmale genügen dürfte. Nur über die
Behaarung des Schwanzes möchte ich noch einige Worte sagen, da
diese, der Natur der Sache nach, in der Abbildung nicht deutlich
genug wiedergegeben werden konnte. Die proximalen ¾ des
Schwanzes sind fast nackt, nur mit spärlich und einzeln stehenden,
kaum 1 mm langen weissen Härchen besetzt; am distalen Viertel
werden sie allmählich bis 3 mm lang und an den distalen 4
Centimetern stehen sie eng aneinander und sind bräunlich gefärbt.
— Das Museum erhielt inzwischen 2 weitere Exemplare von den
Philippinen, und zwar noch eins von Samar durch Dr.
S c h a d e n b e r g und eins von Nord Mindanao durch Dr. R i z a l .
Das rothbraune Gesicht und überhaupt die braunere Farbe ist bei
allen auffallend, und sie sind hierdurch zusammen mit den fast
nackten Tarsen und dem wenig behaarten Schwanze leicht von
anderen Tarsiern zu unterscheiden.
[Inhalt]
9. Tarsius spectrum (Pall.)
B o r n e o -Exemplare zeigen vorwiegend braune Töne wie die von

den Philippinen, allein sie haben behaarte Tarsen und einen spärlich
behaarten Schwanz mit heller Quaste, wie T. spectrum von anderen
Inseln. Immerhin wäre es möglich, dass auch die Borneo Form als
locale abgetrennt werden könnte. Schon Te m m i n c k (Coup-d’oeil
III, 112 1849) sagt: „La même espèce se trouve aussi dans les
parties méridionales de Bornéo; toutefois elle paraît former une
variété locale propre à cette île. Le Tarsius spectrum de Célèbes a le
bout ou flocon terminal de la queue noir, celui de Bornéo a cette
partie d’un cendré-fauve.“ T. fuscus von Celebes unterscheidet sich
allerdings bedeutend von spectrum, wie wir besonders durch
W e b e r (Zool. Ergebn. III, 262 1893) wissen, ob aber die Borneo
Exemplare von denen der übrigen Inseln, wo Tarsius vorkommt,
hinlänglich und so constant differiren, um einen besonderen Namen
zu verdienen, kann ich wegen zu geringen Materiales von den
anderen Inseln nicht entscheiden. Das Museum besitzt 5 von
Borneo: vier vom Südosten und eins vom Westen. Auch die 3 von
Borneo im Berliner Museum zeichnen sich durch viel Braun aus, es
ist darunter eins vom Nordosten; H o s e führt welche (Mamm.
Borneo, Diss. 1893, 17, inl. Name ingkat) vom Nordwesten, W o l f f
(Natuurk. Tijdschr. Nederl. Ind. 16, 44 1858/9) welche von der
Ostküste auf, Tarsius ist also über ganz Borneo verbreitet. Auch auf
der [10]Insel K a r i m a t a , westlich von Borneo, kommt er vor
(Te i j s m a n n l. c. 36, 246 1876, inl. Name kebuku) und auf
S i r h a s s e n , einer der Natuna Inseln (T h o m a s & H a r t e r t
Nov. Zool. I, 655 1894). W e b e r (l. c. III, 263 1893) meinte, dass es
nicht ganz sicher gewesen wäre, ob T. spectrum auch auf
S u m a t r a lebe oder nicht, allein es lagen schon früher Exemplare
aus dem Lampongschen (Natuurk. Tijdschr. Nederl. Ind. 16, 87
1858/9 und 27, 383, 1864, inl. Name krabuku) in Batavia vor. (S.
noch mehrere inländische Bezeichnungen für Tarsius bei
H u b r e c h t l. c. 54, 39 1895.) Von B i l i t o n hat J e n t i n k (Notes
Leyden Mus. XII, 149 1890) die Art registrirt.
Ich hoffe auch von T. spectrum später eine Abbildung geben zu

können, da die vorhandenen den jetzigen Anforderungen nicht mehr
entsprechen. (Vgl. A u d e b e r t : Maki p. 29 Pl. I, an 8, col.;
H o r s f i e l d : Zool. Res. 1824 pl. 4, col. und Taf. zu Nr. 2, Figur G
Zähne; B u r m e i s t e r : Tarsius 1846 T. 1, col.; G. C u v i e r : Règne
animal Mamm. 1849 pl. 22, 1, col., 1 a–c Zähne; G e r v a i s : Mamm.
1854, 162, Skelet s. zu p. 178; B r e h m : Thierl. I, 307 3. Aufl. 1890,
mit nackten Tarsen! — seitens L y d e k k e r : Nat. Hist. I, 236 1893/4
copirt; F o r b e s : Prim. I pl. II 1894, col.)
[Inhalt]
10. Paradoxurus musschenbroeki Schl.
Tafel V und VI
1878 S c h l e g e l Prospectus von „Annals of the R. Zool. Mus. of

(?) the Netherlands at Leyden“ (mit Schädel-Tafel)
1879 S c h l e g e l Notes Leyden Mus. I, 43
1883 J e n t i n k Notes Leyden Mus. V, 178
1885 B l a n f o r d P. Z. S. 790, 806
1887 J e n t i n k Cat. (ost.) IX, 94 Pl. 1 u. 2 (Schädel)
1890 W e b e r Zool. Erg. I, 110
1894 W e b e r Zool. Erg. III, 469 fg.
Dieses grösste Raubthier von Celebes 1 blieb merkwürdig lange

unbekannt, es ist allen früheren Reisenden entgangen, oder wenn
sie davon gehört hatten, wie z. B. v. R o s e n b e r g (Mal. Arch.
1878, 268) und i c h , so war es ihnen nicht gelungen, es zu
erbeuten. Laut Tagebuchnotiz hörte ich am 20. Juni 1871 in Belang
in der Minahassa, dass ein „andjing utan“ (Waldhund) seit einiger
Zeit in der Nähe sei und Hühner weghole. Ich hatte schon früher
einen Preis auf das Thier, von dem Mancher in der Minahassa
sprach, gesetzt, aber erfolglos. Erst v a n M u s s c h e n b r o e k
verschaffte, als er 1875 Resident von Manado war, 5 Exemplare von
Kinilo und Tanawangko, und 1883 kamen durch v. F a b e r noch 7
nach Leiden, die von denselben Localitäten herrührten. 2 Das
Dresdener Museum erhielt seit Anfang 1894 6 Bälge mit den
Skeletten (2 m. u. 1 f. ad., 1 m. u. 1 f. jun., 1 f. juv.), beim Dorfe Kali
in der Nähe von Kakaskassen Februar, Mai und October in Fallen
gefangen, mit den Bezeichnungen andjing utan (mal.) und lonkoi.
Auch P. und F. S a r a s i n bekamen mehrere, wie sie mir unter dem
4. August 1894 mittheilten, und zwar aus den Wäldern, die die
verschiedenen Kraterberge in der Nähe von Rurukan bedecken. „Sie
nähren sich, wie uns die Untersuchung des Magens lehrte, sowohl
von Waldratten, als auch von den reifen Früchten der Papaya.“ Das
Thier ist daher keineswegs selten, wie man, da es so lange
unentdeckt geblieben ist, versucht sein könnte zu vermuthen. Der
Grund hiervon lag vielmehr darin, dass die Eingebornen den Fang
nicht übten, bis sie genügend dazu angespornt wurden, und dass die
Naturforscher früher die Art und Weise des Fanges nicht kannten,
sowie darin, dass das Thier überhaupt verborgen lebt und wohl nur
Nachts auf Raub ausgeht. Die bis jetzt bekannten Fundorte: Kinilo,
Rurukan und Kali liegen dicht bei einander, nicht fern von Manado;
Tanawangko etwas mehr westlich; allein die Art hat gewiss eine viel
weitere Verbreitung. Die R o s e n b e r g schen Angaben (s. bei
J e n t i n k Notes Leyden Mus. V, 179 1883) beziehen sich auf das
Gorontalosche, es ist jedoch noch fraglich, ob es sich dort, wie auch
bei meiner [11]Notiz von Belang, um P. musschenbroeki handelt. Ob
die Art auch in Central, Nordost und Süd Celebes 3 vorkommt, bleibt
festzustellen.
Ein altes Männchen und ein junges Weibchen sind auf Tafel V in ⅕–
⅙ n. Gr. abgebildet.
B l a n f o r d , der vorzügliche Kenner der Paradoxuri, sagt (P. Z. S.

1885, 790): „P. musschenbroeki differs greatly from all other species
in its annulated tail. The skull is intermediate in form between the last
mentioned little group (Paguma) and typical Paradoxuri, but rather
nearer to the former. The shape of the palate is peculiar“. Und (p.
806): „The most remarkable peculiarity of the skull and dentition is
that the rows of upper premolars and molars, instead of diverging
greatly behind, as in all other Paradoxuri, are nearly parallel 4, the
hinder part of the palate being proportionately much narrower than in
other species of the genus. The distance between the anterior
premolars is 0.68 inch [17,3 mm], between the last molars 0.77
[19,6]. In other species the latter measurement exceeds the former
by at least one half“. Die von B l a n f o r d erwähnten Maasse sind
bei dem Tafel VI Figur 1 in ⅓ n. Gr. abgebildeten männlichen adulten
Skelette (2324) 20,6 und 23,6 mm, der Schädel ist auch länger mit
157 mm, gegen 146 (5.75 inches) bei B l a n f o r d . J e n t i n k (p.
179) giebt die Länge eines adulten Schädels auf 148 mm an, die
Breite auf 45, die Jochbogenbreite auf 85, bei dem 157 mm langen
Schädel von 2324 ist die Breite nur 43 und die Jochbogenbreite 79,
er ist also länger und schmäler als der von J e n t i n k abgebildete.
Die ersten Praemolaren sind noch vorhanden, J e n t i n k sagt, sie
fehlen bei adulten Exemplaren, was aber wohl nur bei alten der Fall
sein mag, denn 2324 ist adult, wenn auch etwas jünger als das
Exemplar a (Cat. p. 94), dessen Schädel J e n t i n k abbildete. Länge
des Körpers und Kopfes des ausgestopften Ex. (2310, zu Skelet
2324) 820 mm, Länge vom Vertex zum Anus 680, Länge des
Schwanzes 690.
Da mir das Exemplar 2310 in Spiritus zukam, so liess ich die (linke)
Vola und Planta, ihres bemerkenswerthen Oberflächenreliefs wegen,
photographiren und bilde sie Tafel VI Figur 2 und 3 in n. Gr. ab. Ein
auffallender Unterschied mit anderen von mir daraufhin untersuchten
Paradoxuri besteht darin, dass die Tastballen bei P. musschenbroeki
glatt, bei jenen gefeldert sind.
V o l a (Figur 2). Die 5 Nagel- oder Endballen (a–e) 5 sind relativ

mässig, die sie verbindende Schwimmhaut dagegen ist sehr stark
entwickelt, die 4 Metacarpophalangealballen (α–δ), besonders der 3.
(γ), zeigen mächtige Ausbildung, wie auch der Radial- und der
Ulnarballen (r und u), besonders letzterer, der überhaupt der grösste
Tastballen der Vola ist; der 4. Metacarpophalangealballen (δ) zeigt
proximal eine kleine Abschnürung; ein Pisiformballen (P) ist kaum
angedeutet. Diese Metacarpophalangeal-, Radial- und Ulnarballen
bilden mehr oder weniger ein zusammenhängendes, nur durch
schmale Furchen von einander getrenntes Gebilde, mit der
Ausnahme jedoch, dass sie in der Mitte eine mit groben Warzen
besetzte vertiefte intermediäre Tastfläche 6 umschliessen, auch
proximal und peripher reihen sich den Ballen einige Warzen an; die
Tastballen aber sind ganz glatt und nicht mit Warzen besetzt.
P l a n t a (Figur 3). Die Endballen und Metatarsophalangealballen

verhalten sich sehr ähnlich denen der Vola, so dass die Abbildung
zum Verständnisse genügen dürfte. Der Tibialballen (t) ist
langgestreckt, und verschmälert sich proximalwärts, der
Fibularballen (f) ist etwas kürzer; zwischen beiden liegt eine
längliche intermediäre Tastfläche, die mit unregelmässig
angeordneten polygonalen oder abgerundeten, groben, an einander
stossenden Warzen besetzt ist. Die peripher stehenden Warzen sind
hier regelmässiger (einreihig) angeordnet als auf der Vola.
Untersucht man dagegen dieselben Gebilde z. B. bei P. musanga Gr.

(B 3261 von Sumatra, in Spiritus), so findet man eine grosse Reihe
von Unterschieden, vor Allem aber sieht man schon mit
unbewaffnetem Auge, dass alle Tastballen gleichmässig mit
polygonalen flachen Hautwarzen vollkommen [12]besetzt sind, und
ebenso die intermediären Tastflächen, soweit vorhanden, so dass
ein dichtes Netzwerk, eine Felderung, entsteht; nur die
Schwimmhaut zwischen den Endballen und den Metacarpo- und
Metatarsophalangealballen ist glatt. Die 5 Endballen der Vola und
Planta sind sehr stark entwickelt. Der 1. Metacarpophalangealballen
steht etwas abgegrenzt, die anderen 3 sind aber fast mit einander
verschmolzen; der Ulnarballen ist sehr gross, der Radialballen etwas
kleiner, beide liegen aber direct an den Metacarpophalangealballen;
dem Ulnarballen reiht sich ein kleiner Pisiformballen an. 1. und 2.
Metatarsophalangealballen etwas gegeneinander abgegrenzt, 3. und
4. mit einander verschmolzen; Tibial- und Fibularballen
langgestreckt, letzterer etwas breiter und distal mit dem 1.
Metatarsophalangealballen verschmolzen; zwischen dem Tibial- und
Fibularballen eine lange breite intermediäre Tastfläche mit groben
polygonalen, an einander stossenden Warzen besetzt.
An trockenen Exemplaren lässt sich die Disposition der Tastballen

nicht genau studiren, ihre Felderung aber konnte ich bei P. musanga
von Borneo, fasciatus Desm. von Java, philippensis Jourd. von
Panay und leucomystax Gr. von Borneo (?) als die gleiche erkennen
wie bei P. musanga in Spiritus. K l a a t s c h (Morphol. Jahrb. 14, 417
1888) beschreibt die Ballen von P. typus [niger (Desm.)] auch als mit
grösseren polygonalen, ziemlich flachen Hautwarzen besetzt, es
scheint also, dass die meisten, wenn nicht alle Paradoxurus-Arten,
bis auf P. musschenbroeki, gefelderte Tastballen haben, während
dieser die glatten mit Viverren gemein hat. 7 Das Oberflächenrelief
einer jeden Paradoxus Art wird wohl anders gestaltet sein, allein
wenn alle bis auf P. musschenbroeki gefelderte Tastballen besitzen,
so hat dieses abweichende Verhalten des letzteren doch wohl mehr
Gewicht. Allerdings kommen derartige morphologische
Differenzirungen innerhalb einer Gattung auch sonst vor, wie wir
denn oben (S. 8) eine solche, nach W e b e r , in dem beschuppten
und glatten Tarsier-Schwanze zu erkennen hatten; falls jedoch dies
Verhalten von P. musschenbroeki unter den Paradoxuri wirklich ein
isolirtes ist, und Hand in Hand geht mit den anderen abweichenden
Charakteren (Schädel, Schwanzringelung etc.), so wäre eine
generische Abtrennung vielleicht geboten. Der ganze Habitus von P.
musschenbroeki weicht von dem der anderen Paradoxuri durch
Plumpheit ab, der dicke Kopf ferner mit seinen langen steifen, hellen
und dunklen Schnurren, und die breiten Füsse mit ihren stark
ausgebildeten Schwimmhäuten geben dem Thier etwas otterartiges,
was Jedem sofort in die Augen springt, so dass man zuerst gar
keinen Paradoxurus vor sich zu haben vermeint.
1 Wie Cryptoprocta ferox Th. Benn. das grösste von Madagaskar; Paradoxurus
leucomystax Gr. von Malacca, Borneo und Sumatra ist kleiner als P.
musschenbroeki. ↑
2 F a b e r hatte 1878 auch zwei Exemplare an das Gothaer Museum geschickt. ↑
3 Te i j s m a n n (Natuurk. Tijdschr. Nederl. Ind. 38, 77 1879) hörte, dass sie am
Pik von Bonthain vorkomme, dies bedarf natürlich der Bestätigung; W e b e r
(Zool. Erg. I, 110 1890) fand in Süd Celebes keine Spur davon, ebensowenig wie
W i c h m a n n (l. c.) als er von Palos nach Parigi ging, allein wenn man bedenkt,
wie lange das relativ grosse Thier in der naturwissenschaftlich so viel
durchsuchten Minahassa verborgen blieb, so sind solche negativen Befunde
vorläufig ganz und gar nicht beweisend. ↑
4 Wie aus J e n t i n k s Pl. 2 ersichtlich. ↑
5 Ich folge der Nomenklatur und sonst K l a a t s c h : Zur Morphologie der
Tastballen der Säugethiere (Morphol. Jahrb. 14, 407 1888). ↑
6 K o l l m a n n : Tastapp. d. Hand 1883, 40. ↑
7 Bei Viverra civetta Schreb. fand K l a a t s c h (p. 418) sie glatt und punktirt, was
ich auch für V. tangalunga Gr. angeben kann, die Tastballen bei Paradoxurus
musschenbroeki aber zeigen diese höckerige Punktirung nicht, sie sind ganz
glatt. ↑
[Inhalt]
11. Bubalus mindorensis Heude
Tafel VII und VIII
1860 B l y t h J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal. XXIX, 303 (Misc. pap. rel. to

Indo China II, 295 1886) Tamarao
1878 E v e r e t t P. Z. S. 792 Anoa depressicornis
A . B . M e y e r P. Z. S. 881 Tamarao
B a r t l e t t P. Z. S. 882 Indian Buffalo of small size
1885 J o r d a n a Bosquejo geogr. Fil. 171 Antilope depressicornis
1887 H o f f m a n n Abh. Mus. Dresden 1886/7 Nr. 3 p. 26 Taf. Fig. 6
a–f Bubalus indicus?
1888 (vor Aug.) H e u d e Mém. Hist. Nat. Chin. II, 1 p. 4 und 50
Bubalus mindorensis
(16. Aug.) S t e e r e (bei S c l a t e r ) Nature 38, 363 Anoa
mindorensis
(1. Nov.) A . B . M e y e r Nature 39, 9 Bubalus sp.
(20. Nov.) S t e e r e P. Z. S. 413 Anoa oder Probubalus
mindorensis
(6. Dez.) H e u d e Nature 39, 128 Bubalus mindorensis
(13. Dez.) E v e r e t t Nature 39, 150 Bubalus sp.
G o g o r z a An. Soc. Espan. XVII, II (des S. A.) Anoa
depressicornis
1889 A . B . M e y e r Zool. Garten 251 Bubalus sp.
1890 H e l l e r Abh. Mus. Dresden 1890/1 Nr. 2 p. 3 u. 31 Bubalus
mindorensis
S t e e r e List Phil. 29 Probubalus mindorensis
N e h r i n g Zool. Anz. 448, SB. Ges. naturf. Berlin 101,
Naturw. Wochenschr. V, 227 Bubalus mindorensis[13]
1894 J e n t i n k Notes Leyden Mus. XVI, 199 pl. 8–11 Bubalus
mindorensis
B o u r n s & W o r c e s t e r Notes Exp. Phil. Is. 63 Bubalus
mindorensis
L y d e k k e r Nat. Hist. II, 206 Bos mindorensis
H e u d e Mém. Hist. Nat. Chin. II, 4 p. 204 pl. XIX E Fig. 19
Bubalus mindorensis
1895 O u s t a l e t Bull. Mus. Paris 202 Anoa mindorensis
E l e r a Cat. sist. Fil. I, 33 Bubalus mindorensis
1896 L y d e k k e r Geogr. Hist. Mamm. 47, 279, 305 Bos
mindorensis
Es könnte ein Zweifel darüber entstehen, ob H e u d e oder S t e e r e

als Autor dieser Art zu nennen sei, da S t e e r e s erste Beschreibung
am 16. August 1888 veröffentlicht war, und das 1. Heft des 2.
Bandes der Mémoires concernant l’histoire naturelle de l’empire
chinois par des pères de la compagnie de Jésus in Chang-Hai im
Jahr 1888 ohne Datum erschien. Es lässt sich aber aus
buchhändlerischen Catalogen (z. B. F r i e d l ä n d e r Nat. nov. Sept.
1888, 289) nachweisen, dass H e u d e s Publication vor August statt
gefunden hat, und dieser daher, und nicht S t e e r e , als Autor
figuriren muss.
Der einheimische Name des Zwergbüffels von Mindoro ist, nach

vielfachen Angaben, Ta m a r a o 1, nicht Tamaron oder Tamarou, wie
S t e e r e (P. Z. S. 1888, 414 und List 1890, 29) schreibt. Er ist bis
jetzt nur von Mindoro bekannt, denn dass E l e r a (l. c.) ihn auch von
Celebes aufführt, beruht auf einer Verwechslung mit der Anoa oder
auf einer anderen Unzulänglichkeit, wie man sie auf Schritt und Tritt
in seiner Compilation antrifft. N e h r i n g (SB. Ges. naturf. Berlin
1894, 185) beschrieb von der Mindoro nahen Calamianen Insel
Busuanga noch einen wilden Büffel als B. moellendorffi, der etwas
grösser als der Tamarao sei, allein ich halte ihn nicht für einen
wilden, da Dr. S c h a d e n b e r g mir mittheilte, dass es nach der
Aussage von Don B e r n a r d o A s c a n i o , der 20 Jahr auf den
Calamianen, speziell in Malbató auf Busuanga gelebt hat, dort keine
wilden Büffel gebe. Dass auf der kleinen Insel Jemandem, der so
lange dort als Pflanzer ansässig ist, das Vorhandensein wilder Büffel
unbekannt geblieben sein sollte, kann man ausschliessen; es
handelt sich daher nur um einen verwilderten, oder vielleicht nicht
einmal um einen solchen, 2 falls man darunter nur schon seit
Generationen verwilderte versteht. 3 Dr. S c h a d e n b e r g theilte mir
mit, dass auf Mindoro verwilderte Büffel neben dem Tamarao
vorkommen sollen, er habe aber keine gesehen; man spräche auch
davon, dass sie sich mit Tamaraos kreuzten, worüber er sich jedoch
vorläufig kein Urtheil erlauben wolle. Den Schädel eines solchen
angeblich wilden Carabao von Mindoro sandte er auch ein (B 3199).
Die bis jetzt bekannten Tamaraos geben keinen Anlass zur
Annahme von Kreuzungen, und wenn sie ausnahmsweise statt
hätten, so würde dies bei dem zweifellosen Überwiegen des auf
ganz Mindoro und, wie es scheint, zahlreich vorkommenden
Tamarao wahrscheinlich keinen dauernden Einfluss auf die
Umgestaltung der Art gewinnen können. J o r d a n a (Bosquejo
1885, 172) sagt: „El Tamarao es animal muy agreste y vigoroso, que
á veces lucha victoriosamente con el bufelo silvestre en el seno de
los bosques“, allein auf solche Angaben nach Hörensagen ist vorerst
gar Nichts zu geben.
J e n t i n k (l. c. 204) hält es für möglich, dass der Tamarao ein

Bastard zwischen Bubalus bubalus und Anoa depressicornis von
Celebes sei. Ich kann mir gar nicht vorstellen, wie eine solche
Hybridisation hätte zu Stande kommen sollen. Dazu hätte die Anoa
zahlreich nach Mindoro gebracht worden sein [14]müssen, was
gewiss nicht geschehen ist. Auch ist der Tamarao eine ganz stabile,
typische und gewiss alte Form. Der Schädel 1569 des Museums,
den S e m p e r vor dem Jahr 1865 erhielt, stimmt vollkommen
überein mit denen von in den Jahren 1894 und 1895 durch
S c h a d e n b e r g erlegten Exemplaren. Dies beweist schon die
Constanz, nicht minder wie die in den Museen vorhandenen, ganz
untereinander übereinstimmenden Häute es darthun. Nimmt
J e n t i n k an, dass die Anoa früher auf Mindoro gelebt habe, und
sich dann mit den importirten Büffeln kreuzte? Welche Gründe
könnte man wohl zu Gunsten einer solchen Annahme ins Feld
führen? L y d e k k e r , der (l. c. 306) die Möglichkeit einer
Bastardirung nach J e n t i n k nicht abweist, sagt, der Tamarao
müsse noch als gute Art erwiesen werden. Wenn aber, wie jetzt,
schon viele gleiche Exemplare bekannt sind (Berlin 1, Dresden 6,
Leiden 3, Manila 2, Paris 2, durch Steere 3, Stuttgart 1 etc.), so ist
es mir ganz unerfindlich, wesshalb man noch an der Artberechtigung
zweifeln, oder einen Bastard im Tamarao erblicken wollte. Auch
vermag ich J e n t i n k darin nicht beizustimmen, dass er meint,
wenn der Tamarao kein Bastard sei, so müsse er eine neue
generische Bezeichnung erhalten, da er weder als echter Büffel,
noch als Anoa angesehen werden könne, denn der Tamarao hat, m.
A. n., genügend Büffelcharaktere, um ihn zu den übrigen Büffeln zu
stellen. Doch die Bildung einer neuen Gattung ist in diesem Fall
unwesentlich und mehr oder weniger Geschmacksache. Die
Hypothese, dass der Tamarao ein Bastard sei, halte ich für um so
entbehrlicher, als sie an und für sich wenig plausibel ist. Tamarao
und Anoa können vielmehr als Nachkommen des Sivalikrindes
angesehen werden, daher die vielfache Übereinstimmung. Die
insulare Sonderung führte zu einer Divergenz in ihrer Entwicklung,
auf Celebes zur Anoa, auf Mindoro zum Tamarao. Diese Hypothese,
wenn schon eine aufgestellt werden soll, scheint mir weit
annehmbarer. (Vgl. H e l l e r : A n o a in Abh. Mus. Dresden 1890/1
Nr. 2 p. 34.)

Managerial Accounting Tools For Business Decision Making Canadian 4Th Edition Weygandt Solutions Manual Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managerial Accounting Tools For Business Decision Making Canadian 4Th Edition Weygandt Solutions Manual Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managerial Accounting Tools for

Business Decision Making Canadian

Self-Study Brief Do It! A&B

1. Describe management’s 1, 2 1, 2 17 42A, 59B

2. Identify the relevant 3, 4 3, 4 11 18, 19, 33 34A, 49B

3. Identify the relevant 5 5 12 20, 21, 33 35A, 36A,

4. Identify the relevant costs 6 6, 7 13 22, 23, 24, 38A, 41A,

5. Identify the relevant costs 7 8 14 25, 26, 33 39A, 45A,

6. Identify the relevant costs 8, 10 9 15 27, 31, 32, 40A, 42A,

7. Determine the sales mix 9 10 16 28, 29, 30 44A, 46A,

34A Prepare an incremental analysis for a special-order Moderate 20–30

35A Prepare an incremental analysis related to a make-or-buy Moderate 30–40

36A Identify the relevant costs in an outsourcing decision. Moderate 20–30

37A Calculate the contribution margin and prepare an Moderate 20–30

38A Determine whether a product should be sold or processed Moderate 30–40

40A Calculate the contribution margin and prepare an Moderate 30–40

45A Calculate contribution margin and prepare incremental Moderate 20–30

46A Calculate contribution margin and prepare incremental Moderate 30–40

Problem Difficulty Time

47B Identify the relevant costs in an outsourcing decision. Moderate 20–30

48B Calculate the contribution margin and prepare an Challenging 30–40

49B Prepare incremental analysis related to a make-or-buy Moderate 30–40

50B Determine whether a product should be sold or processed Moderate 30–40

53B Calculate the contribution margin and prepare an Moderate 30–40

54B Calculate the contribution margin and prepare Moderate 20–30

55B Calculate the contribution margin and prepare Moderate 20–30

56B Determine sales mix with limited resources. Simple 20–30

58B Calculate the contribution margin and prepare an Moderate 30–40

59B Calculate contribution margin and prepare an incremental Moderate 20–30

60B Calculate the contribution margin and prepare an Moderate 30–40

BLOOM’ S TAXONOMY TABLE

Study Objective Knowledg Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation

*6. Identify the relevant costs in BE9 D15 P40A P54B

The correct order is:

1. Identify the problem and assign responsibility.

BRIEF EXERCISE 7-2

Alternative A is better than Alternative B.

BRIEF EXERCISE 7-3

Incremental revenue $1,440,000

The special order should not be accepted, as it will create a $40,000

Incremental revenue (40,000 units × $36 per $1,440,000

BRIEF EXERCISE 7-5 Net

BRIEF EXERCISE 7-6 (Continued)

$16.00 $17.00 $1.00

The bookcases should be processed further because the incremental

BRIEF EXERCISE 7-7

Variable costs $3,500,000 $2,750,000 $750,000

The old factory machine should be replaced as it will save the

BRIEF EXERCISE 7-9 Increase

Sales $200,000 $ — $(200,000)

The division should be continued because $20,000 of contribution

BRIEF EXERCISE 7-10

(a) Incremental revenue from the order (6,000 × $31) $186,000

(b) Corn Company should accept the special order as it would

DO IT! REVIEW 7-12

(a) The company should make the components, as it would cost

(b) If the released capacity can generate additional income of $30,000,

Incremental analysis to determine processing further:

Incremental revenue from processing further ($99 – $75) $24.00

La Mesa should process the tables further as it would increase their

DO IT! REVIEW 7-14 Net

Variable costs $12,000 $8,000 $4,000