846 DR.J.MURIE ON THE SPECIES OF PHASCOLOMYS. [ Dec. 12, 
Lastly are given a number of crania of what I suppose to repre- 
sent P. platyrhinus, on account of their great size and other distin- 
guishing peculiarities. These last are of much greater relative di- 
mensions than either of the others. 
Being convinced that the skull of Mr. Gould’s P. lasiorhinus 
(Gray’s Lasiorhinus latifrons) answered in all particulars to Owen’s 
P. latifrons, and that there was, moreover, a somewhat constant and 
striking difference between the crania of P. wombat and others an- 
swering to the typical skull of P. platyrhinus, I found myself pre- 
pared to believe that this last might, after all, turn out to be iden- 
tical with Dr. Gray’s and Mr. Gould’s larger-sized species. 
This idea would have but rested, or been dependent, on the sup- 
position of the relation of the superior-sized skulls to the larger 
skins, had I not had the good fortune of obtaining an entire skeleton 
and a separate skin of what I have since made out to be two indivi- 
duals of P. platyrhinus. 
My able colleague, Mr. A. D. Bartlett, in his customary kind 
manner, procured these for me from his friend Mr. Bush, of Clap- 
ham. The latter gentleman had received three unusually large living 
specimens of Wombats from Victoria in 1863 or 1864 ; and all of the 
animals subsequently dying, he retained the skin of one, and the 
entire dried carcass of another. 
I have also been favoured in having had access to several portions 
of the skeleton which belonged to the above skin, and among these 
the cranium *, which is so important, inasmuch as it shows that the 
two animals belonged to the same species. Furthermore I have 
been assured they were male and female, which thus extricates us 
from the difficulty which might be raised that the large size of the 
skull was probably dependent on sex. The several bones to which 
I have just made allusion grace the admirable new osteological series 
formed by Mr. Flower at the Hunterian Museum. 
I shall now take into consideration the skulls of these two Wom- 
bats as enabling a judgment to be formed how far they agree with 
P. platyrhinus, commencing with that one first regarded by Owen 
as presenting specific differences. 
In the ‘Osteological Catalogue of the Museum of the Royal Col- 
lege of Surgeons’ (vol. i. p. 334), Professor Owen in naming the 
skull of a Wombat (P. platyrhinus) points out that “it differs 
from the P. vombatus in its superior size, in the greater relative 
breadth of the nasal bones, and im the larger and deeper excavation 
above the tympanic bone.”’ These distinguishing characters coincide 
with those of the skulls in question ; and further comparison of the 
latter with the typical cranium itself permits of other resemblances 
being noted, as well as that they vary slightly individually ; while 
alogether they do not coincide with the skulls of P. wombat, to 
which, however, in some points, they bear close analogies. 
If the preceding table be consulted, it will be best seen what com- 
* Now no. 1797a, Osteological Series, Mus. Roy. Coll. of Surgeons. The 
specimen has been regarded as belonging to the Common Wombat and named 
accordingly by the present Conservator. 
