1885.] MR. R. COLLETT ON KCHTDNA ACANTHION. 1-19 



and in a later article (1881, p. 737) a similar statement is made as 

 regards the district of Toovroomba, not far from Brisbane (27 i° S. lat.) 

 by Mr. George Bennett, his son. Moreover, Mr. Macleay says in an 

 article in Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales, 1884, vol. viii. p. 425, 

 that he has had the Echidna in confinement from the district of 

 Brisbane. Thus it is evident that the Echidna is a well-known 

 animal in that part of Queensland. 



In all these papers the said species is entered under the name of 

 E. hystrix, i. e. aculeata, and, moreover, as several of the specimens 

 collected have been examined in London by Prof. Owen and others, 

 there seems no reason to doubt that they really belong to this well- 

 known South-Australian species. 



In June 1878, again, Capt. Armit mentions in the Journ. Linn. 

 Soc. New South Wales, vol. xiv. p. 411, that North Queensland is 

 also inhabited by the Echidna, which he found numerous at 

 Georgetown, 200 miles west of Cardwell, and he states that it is met 

 with at least up to 18*^ S. lat., and according to his opinion also 

 will be found on the Leichhardt ranges and throughout the length 

 and breadth of the Cape- York peninsula. 



Capt. Armit gives us no definite information as to the species to 

 which he refers the Echidna of the Cardwell district, nor does he 

 furnish any description of it. But he sent to the Linnean Societ)' in 

 London a dried skull to which, according to Dr. Murie, the following 

 label was attached : — " Head of Tachyglossus (hystrixl), $ , killed 

 near Georgetown in 18' S. lat. Nov. 1876." 



This skull has been examined by Dr. Murie and described in the 

 Journ. Linn. Soc. vol. xiv. p. 413, where he concludes his researches 

 with the following words : — " In conclusion I would state that, from 

 the data which have come under my observation, we cannot regard 

 Capt. Armit's animal found in Queensland as oft'ering any distinction 

 from the wide-spread Echidna ht/strix." 



As mentioned before, there seems to be no reason to doubt that 

 the Echidna that occurs in the district of Brisbane really belongs to 

 E. aculeata, which thus extends from the most southern part of 

 Australia at least as far north as the 27g" S. lat. in South Queens- 

 land. 



On the other hand, it is highly improbable that Capt. Armit's 

 specimens from North Queensland could have been identical with the 

 said species, although Dr. Murie has with the greatest accuracy 

 compared the skull mentioned above with five skulls of the species 

 from South Australia and Tasmania, without being able to find any 

 specific distinction between them. It will be shown by the following 

 that Dr. Murie has given at least one brief character (without 

 attributing much importance to it, on account of the insufficient 

 materials), which has, however, proved to be constant for the 

 species: — "The female Queensland skull .... is barely a[)pre- 

 ciably narrower across the cerebral area, but decidedly lower in the 

 same region." 



Amongst the interesting collection of mammals brought home 

 to the Museum of the University of Christiania by Dr. Lumholtz 



