A NEW GENUS OF FOSSIL MABSUPIALS.— LONGMAN. 77 



Scott and Lord (1920, p. 87) make the remarkable statement that 

 .N. dunense "really relates to Phascoloniis." On the strength of the confusion 

 between the genera Sceparnodon and Pliascolonus, elucidated by Sterling fl913), 

 they assume that "the claims of the type jaws of dunense to any genus other 

 than that of Pliascolonus, became remote." But the molars of Pliascolonus are 

 of the curved, rootless type of the Phascolomyida?, and the generic association 

 with them of N. dunense with its bilophodont molars, talons, and separated 

 fangs is unthinkable. Such unwarranted attempts to dispose of the species of 

 previous authors are not in keeping with the A^alue of the excellent work done 

 by the Tasmanian authors on their own fine material. 



Most of the difficulties which have arisen over the classification of 

 Nototherian remains are due to the fact that the first four species were primarily 

 described from incomplete mandibular elements. This is most unfortunate, 

 for it is evident that the mandible does not carry specific characters in so marked 

 a degree as does the cranium. As the years go by it is to be hoped that definitely 

 associated bones will shed still further light on the several species of these 

 quaint animals. Such an association might give us information as to the large 

 and very wide humerus, incorrectly linked by Owen with his Nototherium 

 7nitcJielli. It would not be altogether surprising if the wide-faced Eunjzygoma 

 were found to be equipped with such widened humeri. 



In 1915, Scott (p. 45) suggested that the future might demonstrate two 

 races of Nototheres, "one with humeri approaching the Diprotodon type, and 

 the other approximating to the wombat type." 



In its complex of characters Eunjzygoma shows affinities with 

 Phascolarctus (Native Bear), Phascolomys (AVombats), and Macropus (Kan- 

 garoos). The Nototherian group apparently arose from a common ancestry 

 before the families represented by these three genera were differentiated. In 

 his study of the evolution of the Australian ]Marsupialia, B. A. Bensley (1903, 

 p. 159) notes Nototherium as representing one of the ancestral types leading 

 towards Diprotodon. Euryzygoma, however, represents a specialised lateral 

 offshoot which became extinct, and is another interesting instance of radial 

 •evolution. 



Family. — The genus Diprotodon was established by Owen in 1838, but 

 the great pala?ontologist did not define Nototherium until 1845. Most of the later 

 writers have included both genera in one family. Should this be done, the term 

 Diprotodontidce (Gill, 1872), as used by Bensley (1903) and W. K. Gregory 

 (1910), has precedence over Nototheriidce (Lydekker, 1887), following the 

 custom of using priority as a basis for family names. Lydekker (1887), how- 

 ever, recognised both families. When the skull of Diprotodon is more fully 

 known, adequate evidence for this distinction may be forthcoming. As the 

 •<3rania of Diprotodon in the Queensland JMuseum are by no means complete, the 



