in NezQ South Waks. 305^ 



whereas, in the fossil, the bony palate will be seen to extend a» 

 iax back as the posterior edge of the 4th molares. I am there- 

 fore led to consider the fossil Hypsiprymnus as different from 

 all the known living species of this genus. 



C. Genus MACROPCTS, or KANGAROO PROPER. 



C. 1. Portion of the pelvis of the left side of a very large 

 kangaroo. 



2. Inferior extremity of the femur of a very large spe- 

 cies of kangaroo. 



3. Fifth caudal vertebra of a large species of kangaroo. 

 These three specimens appear to me to belong to a species of 



kangaroo, differing from any of those known to zoologists, by 

 its superior stature; these bones resemble in every detail of 

 their configuration to the same in the Macropus major of Shaw, 

 but exceed them in dimensions in the proportion nearly of 3 : 2, 

 We may reasonably conclude, therefore, that the animal to 

 which these fossils belonged, differed by its gigantic stature 

 alone from all the known living species of the genus Macropus. , 



C. 4. Fourth lumbar vertebra of a kangaroo, scarcely equal 

 in size to the Macropus major. 

 5. Fragments of the lower jaw of a kangaroo, containing 

 the three posterior molares. 

 These two specimens belong to a species which does not ap- 

 pear to differ materially from the living varieties of the same 

 size ; in this latter resj^ect they correspond nearly to the Ma- 

 cropus rufo-griseus of Peron and Lesueur. 



C. 6. Fragment of the lower jaw on the right side, con- 

 taining the four anterior molares, and the socket of 

 the fifth, of a kangaroo of the size of the M. major, 



7. Fragment of the right tibia of the same species. 



8. Fragment of the upper maxillary bone of the left 

 side, containing the four posterior molares. 



9. Two posterior molares of the same species. 



The specimens No. 8, and 9. belong to a species of kangaroo 

 very distinct from any of the preceding, and easily distinguisiied 

 by the square form of the molares ; in which respect, as well as 

 in size, the fossil more nearly resembles the Macropus ruf?coHi» 



