SUB-FOSSIL REMAINS FROM KING ISLAND. 
a skeleton in Florence.* These three are undoubtedly those 
taken from Kangaroo Island by Baudin’s expedition. In addition 
there is the doubtful specimen discovered in Liverpool by Dr. 
H. O. Forbes, in regard to which the Hon. Walter Rothschild 
says t—“ In addition to Decrés or Kangaroo Island, also Flinders, 
King Island, and Tasmania had Emus living on them at the time 
of Péron’s visit, and I believe, if authentic specimens from these 
localities were in existence, we should find that each of these 
islands had had a distinct species or race of Emus. Taking this 
for granted, and also taking into account that it is slightly 
different from the type of D. peroni, | have come to the con- 
clusion that the Liverpool specimen is an immature, though full 
grown, individual from one of these other islands; but it is not 
possible from this one rather poor specimen to separate it from 
the Kangaroo Island species, especially as there is absolutely no 
indication of the origin of this specimen.” The only other remains 
of the Kangaroo Island Emu are two bones, one a tibio-tarsus and 
the other a tarso-metatarsus, of which, through the courtesy of 
Professor E. C. Stirling, the Director of the South Australian 
Museum, we are able to give illustrations. 
Dr. Giglioli is of opinion that the Liverpool specimen is 
identical with the Paris and Florence specimens. Most unfortu- 
nately, there is no evidence whatever of where it came from or by 
whom it was collected. A few bones from King Island were also 
sent to Dr. Giglioli by the late Mr. Alex. Morton, and while 
pointing out the necessity of securing a larger series of bones from 
the islands Dr. Giglioli expressed the opinion that the King Island 
specimens belonged to D. peront. 
With the comparatively large series of bones now available it 
is possible to form a tolerably correct idea of the average size of 
the King Island bird. Unfortunately, we have only the measure- 
ments of the bones of one specimen of D. peroni, but we have 
the advantage of knowing that this was full grown, as it lived for 
some time after its arrival in France either at the Jardin des 
Plantes or at the Chateau of Malmaison, and we may therefore 
regard it as probably an average sized specimen—more especially 
as there does not appear to be any great discrepancy in size 
amongst the Paris and the Florence specimens. 
* In his “‘ Catalogue of the Fossil Organic Remains, Mammalia, and Birds contained in 
the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons,” London, 1845, p. 353, Owen makes the 
following statement in regard to specimen No. 1563:—‘‘ A corresponding section of the 
pelvis of a young Emeu (Dromeus ater), showing a smaller proportional expansion of the 
spinal canal for the enlargement of the chord whence the nerves of the legs originate, and 
the more marked difference in the form and proportions of the iliac plates, especially 
behind the acetabulum.” In his work on ‘‘ The Extinct Wingless Birds of New Zealand ” he 
also figures, in Plate xxxv., fig. 7, a sternum to which he applies the name of Dromaius ater. 
No reference to this particular specimen nor any reference to the species is made in the letter- 
press. It seems clear that Owen is not using afer as a synonym for nove-hollandiv, because 
the latter specific name is applied to specimens figured in Plates xxxi. and xxxvii. 
+ ** Extinet Birds,” p. 235. 
[ 20 ] 
