ON HALMATURUS LUCTUOSUS. 265 
evident that the species could not be rightly included in the genus 
Macropus or Halmaturus. Further comparison made it clear that it 
was intimately related to the genus Dendrolagus, and also to the 
species described in Waterhouse’s “‘ Mammalia ”* as Macropus brumii. Pege 49. 
Mr. Waterhouse bases his description of this last-named species 
on a skin so labelled in the British Museum, and on Miiller’s account 
of the same animal in his elaborate work,t in the letterpress of 
which it is termed Dorcopsis brunii. The priority of the generic 
name being undisputed, any fresh species which can be shown to be 
generically related to the above-determined species is evidently a 
species of the genus Dorcopsis. 
This last remark is called for because the subject is rendered 
somewhat involved by an oversight of the illustrious Miller. In his 
description of his Dorcopsis brunii he evidently has no doubt that the 
Specimen or specimens he is considering, is or are identical with the 
“Philander” described by Bruynf as having been seen by him in the 
garden of the Governor of Batavia, upon which the name brunii was 
originally based. Prof. Schlegel,§ however, has most convincingly 
shown the unjustifiableness of this assumption, and has proved beyond 
a doubt that the species to which the name Philander can alone be 
applied is that found only in the islands of Aru and the Ké group, 
_ whilst the species which forms the subject of Miiller’s memoir is a 
~ denizen of New Guinea itself. Prof. Schlegel therefore retains the 
name Macropus brunii for the Philander of Aru, and of the New- 
Guinea animal forms the new species Macropus muelleri. As to me it 
is evident that M. muelleri is generically distinct from Macropus in its 
widest sense, and from all its minor divisions, it is also evident that 
Dorcopsis muelleri must be the name applied to the Dorcopsis brunii 
of Miller. The species which forms the subject of the present com- 
munication, belonging (as I hope to prove) to the same genus as 
Dorcopsis muelleri (Schlegel), must therefore stand as Dorcopsis 
luctuosa (D’ Albertis). 
The material at my disposal is the following:—the skin and 
skeleton of the type specimen of Dorcopsis luctuosa; the skins of an 
adult male and female, as well as of a young male, of Vorcopsis muel- 
lert in the British Museum, collected by Mr. Wallace; a skull from 
the skin of the above-mentioned female of Dorcopsis muelleri; the 
much-discoloured skin of the male of the same species in the British 
Museum, from New Guinea, described by Mr. Waterhouse|] as Macro- 
* Vol i. “ Marsupiata,” p. 180. 
+ “ Zoogdieren van den Indischen Archipel,” pt. 4, Pl. XXT. 
} “ Reizen over Moskovie,” p. 374, Pl. 213 (1713). 
§ “ Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor de Dierkunde,” 1866, p. 350 ef seq. 
|| “ Mammalia,” vol. i., p. 180. 
