254 ZAGLOSSUS. 



name Echidna for Tachyglossus. Dubois (1881) considered Acanthoglossus 

 sufficiently distinct from Acanthoglossa but in case this view were not accepted, 

 he proposed the name Bruynia instead, with Iridadyla as the specific name. 

 In the Zoological record for 1882, Thomas amends this to Bruijnia, and adopts 

 tlie combination Bruijnia bruijnii, though in the year f<illowing he reverts to 

 Proechidna bruijnii which is the name finally used in his Catalogue of the Mar- 

 supialia and Monotremata in the British museum (1888). More recently, in 

 conformity with his adherence to the 'one-letter rule,' Mr. Thomas (1907) has 

 considered Acanthoglossus bruijnii the correct name, but Palmer (1895) has 

 called attention to the name Zaglossus of Gill, which though long overlooked, 

 must evidently take precedence if the Proechidna be considered generically 

 distinct from the Echidna. On this latter point there has been much difference 

 of opinion, but as later detailed, there seems sufficient ground, as modern 

 generic conceptions go, to keep the two apart. 



There is still some doubt as to the number of local races or species of Proe- 

 chidna in New Guinea. Under the name Proechidna villosissima Dubois (1884) 

 figured and described an animal from northern New Guinea which he believed 

 to represent a second species. It was evidently an immature specimen from its 

 small size (total length, 390 mm., rostrum 61), had a nearly straight beak, and 

 a very woolly thick pelage of a uniform dull brown. The spines are described 

 as white and needle-Uke, not exceeding 19 mm. in length, and almost completely 

 hidden in the fur, except that their extreme tips project from the woolly covering 

 at the sides of the neck and in the caudal region. There were sixteen pairs of 

 ribs, one less than recorded by Gervais, but a number probably normal for the 

 genus as I shall later show. Owing to the evident youth of this specimen it 

 has been regarded by most authors (and I think rightly) as merely an immature 

 bruijnii. Gill (1885) in calling attention to his earlier use of the name Zaglossus, 

 includes Zaglossus villosissimus as a second species of the genus, but e\idently 

 he had not seen a specimen. Rothschild (1892) considered it a variety of bruijnii 

 and later (1905) in reviewing the genus recognized it definitely as a subspecies 

 of that animal. This review was based on a study of nine specimens, more than 

 had previously been brought together by any investigator. Rothschild be- 

 lieved that three forms were recognizable: — (1) Zaglossus bruijnii with brownish 

 black or black hair, and white spines; (2) Zaglossus bruijnii villosissima with 

 pale brown hair, thick, long, and woolly, hiding the spines except on flanks and 

 shoulders; and (3) Zaglossus bruijnii nigroaculeala, described by the same author 

 in 1892 as Proechidna nigroaculeala, which has uniformly dark, long, thin, and 



