SUB-FOSSIL REMAINS FROM KING ISLAND. 
Mr. Geo. T. Lloyd*® writing in 1862, says, ‘ The Emu of Tas- 
mania, as I have before stated, is much smaller and darker in 
plumage than that of Australia ; but, never numerous there, that 
noble bird is now nearly extinct.” 
One difficulty in regard to the safe identification of the true 
Tasmanian Emu lies in the fact that at a comparatively early date 
specimens were introduced from the mainland. Mr. D. Le Souét 
states, on the authority of Mr. Stephens, that one or more were 
impor ted from Victoria by Mr. James Cox, of Clarendon, in the 
early “fifties,” and others were introduced somewhat earlier. 
Further evidence of this is afforded by Mr. R. Gunn,f who, 
writing in 1851, says that he obtained twe Emus from the Horti- 
cultuical Gardenen in Hobart, and adds “ they were originally from 
a Port Phillip stock, but brought up in “Van Dieman’s Land.” 
He goes on to say, “a leg of a Tasmanian Emu is now in my 
possession, and so far as I ean judge from it, as a very impe fect 
specimen, there are differences in the arrangement and size of the 
scales, which may justify the separation of the Tasmanian Emu 
from that of New Holland.” In a foot-note, Mr. J. Milligan adds 
that, * Captain Hepburn, of St. l’aul’s Plains, possesses a breed of 
Tasmanian Emus, which he succeeded in rearing from eggs found 
many years since upon the high healthy land in his vicinity.’ 
Two eggs have been recorded as those of the Tasmanian Emu, 
one of which is in the collection of Mr. J. W. Mellor, of Adelaide, 
and the other in that of Mr. D. Le Souéf, Director of the Zoological 
Gardens, Melbourne. Both are said to be considerably smaller 
than those from the mainland. The measurements given by Mr. 
Le pouet are 4°85 x 3°40 inches and 4:80 x 3°50, as compared with 
5°56 x 3°63 inches of a typical ege of a mainland form. A bone 
found by Mr. H. H. Scott in a limestone quarry was sent to Mr. 
D. Le Souéf, who identified it as the femur of an Emu smaller than 
those from the mainland, but too damaged to be of any value. 
Finally, during a recent visit to England, Mr. D. Le Souéf 
examined the two skins of the Tasmanian Emu in the coilection 
of the British Museum, and arrived at the conclusion that they 
were distinct from those of the mainland, a conclusion in which he 
informs us he was confirmed by the Hon. W. Rothschild, 
Dr. Bowdler Sharp, and Mr. Hartert, who also examined them. 
On the evidence derived from the size of the egg Mr. Le Souéf 
proposed the name of Dromeus diemensis for the Tasmanian bird 
that laid it, but exactly what this bird was it is now quite im- 
possible to say with absolute certainty. Presumably, however, 
granting that the egos are those of the true Tasmanian Emu, and 
* “ Thirty-three years in Tasmania and Victoria,” p. 62, 1862. 
+R.Gunn. Proc. R.S. Tas., 1853, p. 170. 
[24] 
