Mr. T. S. Palmer on Thylacomjs, Oiven. 301 



ParagaUa^ variously spelled Perigalea (Gray, 1843), Para- 

 golea (Gray, 1818), Peragalea (Gould, 184.5), Peragale 

 (Thomas, 1887), and under this name the genus has since 

 been generally known. 



Thomas, in referring to the rabbit-bandicoot in his ' Cata- 

 logue of Marsnpialia and Monotremata in the British Museum,' 

 1888, says:—" Blyth (Cuv. An. K. p. 101, 1840) states that 

 Prof. Owen had separated off ' The Philander, Peramelea 

 I'lgotis,^ as a genus under the name of Tliglacom>/s. I am, 

 however, quite unable to find any distinction of the genus in 

 Prof. Owen's papers, and therefore retain the well-known 

 name given to tlie genus by Gray. Blyth's statement was, 

 perhaps, based on a confused account of Gray's Thylamys 

 ehgans {=DideIphgs elegans), a member of the group of 

 opossums to which the latter author applied the name of 

 ' Philander ' " (pp. 221-222, footnote). 



1 have also searched for Thylacomysxw Owen's early papers 

 several times without success, until recently Dr. Chas. W. 

 Richmond called my attention to a paragraph in the London 

 ' Athenseum ' which seems to clear up the uncertainty sur- 

 rounding the name. Late in the year 1838 Owen read his 

 paper " On the Osteology of the Marsupialia " before t!ie 

 Zoological Society of London. A brief report of the meeting 

 of Oct. 9 which appeared in the London ' Athenaiuin ' for 

 Oct. 13, 1838, p. 747, contains the following statement: — 

 " The reading of an elaborate paper, descriptive of the 

 osteology of the Marsupialia, was commenced by Mr. Owen, 

 who remarked on the great value of an acquaintance with 

 the structure of the skeleton in determining the genera and 

 species of this group of animals, and proposed the new genus 

 Thylacomys for certain species presenting a peculiar confor- 

 mation of the cranium." Owen's paper was published both 

 in the * Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London ' and 

 in the ' Annals and Magazine of Natural History,^ an i 

 although in both cases the name is carefully omitted, it n 

 quite certain, on account of the frequent mention of Perameles 

 lagotis, that this is the species referred to in the ' Athenaeum ' 

 report. Although this evidence may seem insufficient to 

 establish the status of Thylacomys in 1838, it leaves no 

 question as to the validity of the genus when taken in con- 

 nexion with Blyth's adoption of tiie name in 1810 and his 

 unequivocal statement : — " P. lagotis^ Reid, is ranged by 

 Prof. Owen as the Philander [Thylacomys, Owen)." 



Thomas's objection that " Blyth's statement was based on a 

 confused account of Thylamys elegans " does not seem to be 

 well taken. Owen apparently used Thylacomys in reading 

 Ann. & Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 7. Vol. iv. 21 



