BY H. H. SCOTT AND CLTVK E. LORD. 2l 



claimed by Ethnological Studies, he never again pub- 

 lished upon the question. 



In 1882 Professor Owen described ( 8| a distal end of 

 ;i femur which he thought might belong to the Genus 

 N ototherium ] this also — in 1910 — was shown to be in- 

 correct, and we may assume that some of the changes 

 rung by taxonomists upon the Nototherian remains dis- 

 d from time to time, found support upon the d - 

 partmv of the real femur from thai incorrectly relegated 

 to it, the more so as the real femur is exceedingly similar 

 in outline to that of Diprotodon. 



This practically end- Professor Owen's connection 

 with the genus. 



In thr year 1874, Professor Frederick McCoy, of the 

 Melbourne University, figured '" Borne Nototherian tusks 

 (from Back Creek, Victoria)j in a comprehensive study 

 of Diprotodon and Nototherian dentition. 



The next important developments of the generic 

 history of this were due to Mr. ('. \V. I). Vis. 



M.A. who first relegal d a humerus to Nototherium that 

 departed so much from Owi i [men thai Lydekk r, in 



his British Museum Catalogui ' . published in l v 77. 

 . it t: Dipro*odon, without question, but it is 

 to-day, on the face of it. apparent that De Via was cor- 



in this mat t r. 



Later on, in August, 1887, De Vis created a new 

 for extinct Nototherian animals, calling it Owenia, 

 which was later changed to Eunwenia; this was com- 

 municated to the Royal S • Qu( [island (1 '. the 

 materia] being a skull and mandible, and the specimens 

 much crushed. - me of our owi controversial 

 rial yet to 1 presented — will revolve around tins. 

 and De Vis subsequ at taxonomic ((Ton- at reconstruc 

 tion. 



In December oi th< same year (1877), hi contributed 

 a paper to tin Linnean Society of New South Wal 

 making a new sped s of Nototherium, namely, that of 

 I) n in nsi . 



By far the mosl important addition to the literature 



of this subject adder! by De Vis wa5 a paper published in 



in which, whil< confirming and re-naming tin 



, nia, li d a i omr>] te revision of the 



nomy of th i extinct animals. This opens up - 



questions, and must be dealt with in tail, as it. 



itulat 'i all published data, and que! ti< ned tin c< i 

 r , | .', ' ■■« n type as and I h nt as- 



