NOTES ON RECORDS OF TREE KANGAROOS IN QUEENSLAND. 155 



Dendrolagus bennettianus was described by De Vis from the skin of an animal which was caught 

 ali\ c- by a resident of the Daintree River. The author was very guarded in his account, and stated 

 that " Were I warranted in proposing a name for this supposed species. I would at once yield to a desire 

 to identify it by association with that of one of our oldest and most respected Australian naturalists, Dr. 

 G. Bennett, who has so often insisted on the probability of Dendrolagus being indigenous to Queensland. 

 Should it prove that the skin before us really represents a distinct species, I trust that the name 

 D. bennettianus be the one conferred on it." 



In isss, De Vis described another species as I), fulvus in a newspaper, " The Brisbane Evening 

 Observer," which he regarded as being distinct, but which Thomas (1888) thought to be probably 

 only a variety o! J>. lumholtzi. 



In 1S94, Dudley Le Souel gave an account of a visit to the Bloomheld River District, and stated 

 that on his return journey he brought back with him " six Tree-climbing Kangaroos, Dendrolagus 

 bennettianus. Two unfortunately died a lew days alter leaving. On arriving in Brisbane, Mr. De Vis 

 informed me that the tree-climbing Kangaroos I had werenot Dendrolagus lumholtzi, but anew variety 

 which he had described and named D. bennettianus, after the late Dr. Bennett." The two specimens 

 which died were purchased by the Australian Museum, and. the species was described more fully from 

 them by Waitc (1894). who also published an interesting account of the habits of the animal from 

 information supplied to him by Messrs. G. and R. Hislop, of the Bloomfield River district. 



In 1909. Beddard stated : — " A recently described species [Proc. Zool. Soc. 1895, p. 131] has been 

 attentively studied in its native haunts by Dr. Lumholtz." The reference quoted is to a paper by 

 Beddard himself" On the Visceral Anatomy and Brain of Dendrolagus bennetti," and it is obvious that Ins 

 is a lapsus calami for /'. bennettianus, because on p. 136 he says: — "There are altogether five 

 species, the tilth. I), bennetti, having been lateh described from specimens living in the Zoological 

 Society's Gardens." In this he makes no mention of Waite's work on D. bennettianus (1894), giving 

 the credit for the description ot the species in Sclater 1 1895), ""' 10 gave a figure and description of two 

 specimens collected by Le Soucf on his trip to North Queensland in 1S93, and which were received 

 by the London Zoological Society in exchange from the Zoological and Acclimatisation Society ci 

 Victoria. In any case the reference is misleading, because Lumholtz studied a different species, 

 D. lumholtzi. 



We might observe that D. lumhotlzi was originally collected on the Upper Herbert River, which 

 is behind Cardwell, in the Rockingham Bay District. It was in this locality that Bennett asserted 

 that a Tree-kangaroo existed. De Vis' specimen came from the Daintree River, which lies to the 

 north of Port Douglas. The Upper Bloomfield, where Hann and Tate made their discovery, is near 

 Cape Tribulation, and is situated north of the Daintree, and a short distance south of Cooktown, 

 consequently we may safely assume that these explorers were the first to make known the exist- 

 ence of the Tree-kangaroo which was eventually described as Dendrolagus bennettianus, De Vis. 



Bibliography. 

 Beddard, F. E. — " On the Visceral Anatomy and Brain of Dendrolagus," Proc. Zool. Soc. 1895, P- I 3 I - 

 Beddard, F. E. — " Mammalia," Cambridge Natural History, 1909, pp. 136-7. 

 Bennett, G. — Proc. Zool. Soc. 1873, p. 518. 

 Bennett, G- — Proc. Zool, Soc. 1885, pp. 64-5. 



