I'.Y II. If SIOTT. 



107 



There are thus available to students two tibio-tarsi, one 

 tarso-metatarsus, and a nearly complete foot of a Tasmanian 

 p]mu, which are beyond all question correctly named, and 

 which cannot be derived from Australian Emus introduced 

 into Tasmania. 



Whatever the variations in colour, plumage, and dennal 

 scutinj? may have been, it would appear that the tarso- 

 metatarsus was relatively shorter in the Tasmanian, than 

 in the mainland, form. In a specimen of Dromams nova.'- 

 hollundiii, with a tibial length of 446 mm., we should look 

 for a tarso-metatarsus of 411 mm., instead of one of 377 mm., 

 as in Gunn's specimen. 



Much historical data have been published by G. M. 

 Mathews in regard to both the Tasmanian and the King- 

 Island Emus ; and as this work is commonly available, it need 

 not be even quoted here. 



LITERATURE CITED. 



1852. R. Gunn — Papers, Royal Society of Tasmania, 

 1852. Vol. II., p. 170. 



1910. G. Mathews— Birds of Australia, Vol. I. 



1910. Spencer and Kershaw — Memoirs National Mv.seum 

 (Melbourne), No. 3. 



