‘THE SUPPOSED ARTIODACTYLE QUEENSLAND 
RRR Cathe OUTTA . 
By Heser’ A: Loneman. 
( Read before the Royal Society of Queensland, 1st May, 1916.) 
In May, 1886, the late C. W. De Vis read a paper 
before this Society entitled, ““A Post-Pliocene Artiodac- 
tyle.’t Under the name of Procherus celer, he described 
certain fossil teeth as Artiodactyle, associating them with 
the peccaries rather than with the true pigs. 
Apart from bones of the dingo and fragmentary re- 
mains of a few rodents, found in recent deposits, the paleon- 
tological record of Australia so far as land mammals is 
concerned is confined to Marsupials and Monotremes. 
Although Owen described in 1882 a Proboscidian Mammal 
( Notelephas australist) from the remains of a large tusk 
said to have been found on the Darling Downs, later com- 
ments make it appear most unlikely that the fossil was 
ever collected in Australia. It is not surprising, therefore, 
that the affirmation by De Vis of the suilline nature of 
several teeth, aroused considerable interest. 
The material consisted of various teeth received from 
different localities on the Darling Downs, these being 
unaccompanied by cranial or other bones. The type and 
associated teeth have been examined, and the writer has 
come to the following conclusions :—The incisor fossils 
represent remains fiom at least two and probably three 
* Contribution from the Queensland Museum. 
+ Pr. Roy. Soc. Q’ld., III, 1887, pp. 42-47, pl. 1. 
{ Phil. Trans. Roy. Soe., 1882, 3, p. 777, pl. 51. 
