BY li. II. SCOTT AND CLTVB B. LOED. IV) 



he gives an account of a detailed examination of the Wel- 

 lington Valley < aves, together with geological maps and 

 sket: as. He states that the particulars concerning 



the animal remains referred to in his paper read before 

 the Geological Society, had derived great additional im- 

 portance from the disc< Professor Owen. 



Several pla< is were included, by Mitchell, in order to 

 illustrate the bones, as well as a letter from Professor 

 Owen. In the epistle, headed "The Royal College of 

 "Surgeons, May 3th, 1838,' fcb Professor stated, inter alia, 

 'Genu- Diprotodon. I apply this name to th< genus 

 "of Mammalia, i d by the anterior extremity of the 



_ lit. ramus, lower jaw, with a single h: unbent 



"incisor. . . This is tin specimen conjectured to belong 



"to the Du^ong, but ;l res- 



t h of the wi m bal in it 1 -- ( uami lid -t ruo- 



"ture and position. . . Bui ; t diffi rs in th \ quadrilateral 



.ure of its transv ion, in which it corresponds 



"with the inferior incisors of the hippopotamus." 



St rict ly speaking, of cot aus 



Diprotodon, rather than to Nototherium, hot as we b 

 to deal with the question of the Nototheria in relation 

 to geological time at a later portion of this historical 

 . the n mark - i f M : r) Thomas Mit- 



chell are of interest. It also explains the inception of 

 Mitch U's connection with Palaeontolo 

 opinion that the caves had b en prob im reed, 



and that in genera] the plains of the inl srior had b 

 under th i\ one time. The accumulation of animal 



remain were very much broken. No entire skeleton was 

 discovered, and very rarely were any t of the 



animal found associated. 



In the B port of the British Association for 1844 <X) 

 appears the I'm to Nototherium * as distinct, 



from Diprotodon; Professor Owen making two 

 from the material that was available to him at the time — 

 the first of these being Nototherium meruit, and the 

 second X. mitchelli. The collection available to the 

 learned Professor was not large. It cam< from the Con- 

 daminc River, and was collected by Sir Thomas Mitchell. 

 C.B., who appears to have taken a keen interest in the 

 collection of such fos From the study of the 



available data, the genus was founded in the belief that 

 these animals, unlike the Diprotodon, had no tusks. The 

 mistake was due to the lack of sufficient material, and 



o bo the mutilated character of the specimens u 

 ae the types. 



