Jan, 18, 1877] 



NATURE 



257 



REMARKS ON THE NEW MONOTREME 

 FROM NEW GUINEA 



A FEW weeks ago we announced to our readers the 

 remarkable news of the existence of a mammal of 

 the order Monotremata in New Guinea. The receipt of 

 a separate copy of the description of this animal, just 

 published by Dr. W. Peters and the Marquis G. Doria,i 

 enable us to give a few more particulars of what must be 

 universally regarded as one of the most im- 

 portant zoological discoveries of the period. 



Mr. Bruijn, of Ternate, to whom science is 

 indebted for our first acquaintance with this 

 novelty, gives the following details of its dis- 

 covery in a letter to the Italian naturalist, Dr. 

 Beccari : — 



"Two years running my native collectors 

 have brought me word that, according to the 

 Papuan mountaineers, there are a good many 

 mammals in New Guinea, but that they are 

 only hunted there when they are required for 

 food. At first I did not place much confidence 

 in these stories, because I know the litile value 

 of the reports of the hunters and the natives in 

 general. Neveitheless, I have always told them 

 to look carefully for mammals. The last time 

 they set out I told them, in order to stimulate 

 their zeal, that I knew that a certain animal 

 existed in New Guinea of which I showed 

 them a figure, and that I wished to have it 

 at any price, hoping that in searching for it 

 they would, perhaps, find other new or little- 

 known species. The figure which I showed 

 to Joseph and the other hui.ters was that of 

 an Echidna. 



" This year (1876) my men ascended a peak 

 of the Arfaks called Mickirbo, and halted at a 

 spot about the same height above the sea- level 

 as Pjobieda. Here Saleh entered a hut where 

 a piece of a skull of a mammal was offered to 

 him, which he at once thought belonged to the 

 animal which I required. He accepted it and 

 forthwith commenced interrogating the Papuan 

 who had given it to him. The latter told him 

 that the skull belonged to an animal with four 

 legs, with a tail, as large as a dog, and with long 

 harsh fur ; he added that these animals were 

 not uncommon on Mount Arfak, and concealed 

 themselves in small caves, and that the Papuans 

 hunted them with dogs, being very fond of their 

 flesh. The skull in question belonged to an 

 animal that had been killed about a month 

 before. Acting upon this information, Saleh 

 set to work to hunt for this animal, but without 

 success. It was only after he had descended 

 from the mountains that a second skull was 

 brought to him, which was still stinking from 

 the fragments of rotten muscles attached to 

 it." 



One of these two crania reached the Museo 

 Civico of Genoa, in November last, and con- 

 stitutes the material upon which Messrs. 

 Peters and Doria, who are engaged on a joint 

 memoir upon the Mammals and Reptiles of 

 New Guinea, have founded their Tachyglossus^ 

 bru'jnii. 



It will be observed that this skull, of which a figure is 

 given herewith i^Fig. i), copied from that of Messrs. 

 Peters and Doria, wants the greater part of its posterior 



• W. Peters e G. Dorii : " Descrizione di una nuova specie di Tachy- 

 glossus proveniente dalla Nuova Guinea seitentrionale." Ann. Mus. Civ. 

 di St. Nat. di Genova, vol ix. (December 3, 1876) 



2 The " Spiny Ant-eater" of Australia is usually called Echiana in scientific 

 nomenclature, but Messrs Peters and Doria reject this term in favour of 

 Tiichyglossus of Illiger. becauss Echidna was previously applied by Foster 

 in 1778 to a genus of fishes. 



portion, and also the lower jaw. But it is quite perfect 

 enough to enable one to see at a glance that the species 

 must be quite distinct from the Australian Tachy^lossus 

 hystrix and T. seiosus. In the first place the size of the 

 skull is much greater, and the rostrum of the new species 

 is longer by one half, measuring in total length about 

 64 inches, instead of 4"2 inches, as in the Australian 

 animal,^ of which a skull is represented (Fig. 2) for com- 

 parison. Again, in the Papuan species, the rostrum is 



Fig. I.— Skull of Tachyglossus of New Guinea. Fig. 2.— Jkull of Tachyglcssus of Australia 



curved downwards throughout its length, which is not the 

 case in the Australian forms. Other minor differences 

 are pointed out by Messrs. Peters and Doria in their 

 excellent description, which we need not repeat here. It 

 is quite sufficient to compare the oudines of the two skulls 

 together to convince oneself that the newly- discovered 



• It is not known to which of the two Australian species this skull belongs, 

 but they are closely all.ed, and as regards size there is little if any difference 

 between them. 



N 2 



