1875.] MR. A. H. GARROD ON HALMATURUS LUCTUOSUS. 49 
Mr. Waterhouse bases his description of this last-named species 
on a skin so labelled in the British Museum, and on Miuller’s 
account of the same animal in his elaborate work*, 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. Iu 
his description of his Dorcopsis brunii he evidently has no doubt 
that the specimen or specimens he is considering, is or are iden- 
tical with the ‘‘ Philander”? described by Bruyn+ as having been 
seen by him in the garden of the Governor of Batavia, upon which 
the name érunii was originally based. Prof. Schlegel}, how- 
ever, has most convincingly shown the unjustifiableness of this as- 
sumption, 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 muellert. As to me it is evident that M. muellerz 
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 communication, 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 Dorcopsis 
muelleri 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 Macropus brunii; two skeletons of Dendrolagus inustus, one 
in the British Museum and the other in the Museum of the College 
of Surgeons ; as well as a pair of skins and an imperfect skull 
of Macropus brunit from Aru, kindly lent me by Mr. Edward 
Gerrard. 
So far as I know, the visceral anatomy of Dorcopsis muelleri has 
not been described. That of Dendrolagus inustus is fully given by 
Prof. Owen in the ‘ Proceedings’ of this Society ||; and some of the 
actual specimens on which this description is based are preserved 
in the Museum of the College of Surgeons. The internal anatomy 
of Macropus brunii is not known. 
* Zoogdieren van den Indischen Archipel. pt. 4, pl. xxi. 
tT Reizen over Moskovie, p. 374, pl. 213 (1713). 
~ Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor de Dierkunde, 1866, p. 350 ef seg. 
§ ‘Mammalia,’ vol. i. p. 180. || P. ZS. 1852, p. 108 e¢ seg. 
Proc. Zoou. Soc.—1875, No. 1V. 4 
