KUNGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAR. BAND 52. N:0 2. 19 
of examining the species Ludr. lepida and Fudr. caudata in regard to the syndactyly, 
but I should be much suprised, if they should not show similarity also in this respect 
to the type. 
Having convinced myself that the animal brought down by me from the tro- 
pical jungles in North Queensland represented a new species, I wrote to some of the 
directors for the museums in Australia asking them kindly to send me some material 
for comparison. Prof. BALDWIN NSPENCER in Melbourne had the great kindness to 
send me some specimens of Dr. concinna and Dr. nana, which enabled me to com- 
pare my species with these two ones. 
In this connection it might be mentioned that a species of Dromicia already 
has been described from Northern Queensland. In the year 1886 DE Vis (Proceedings 
of the Linnean BSociety of New South Wales p. 1134) described a little marsupial 
under the name of Dr. frontalis. In his Catologue of the marsupialia and monotre- 
mata in the collection of the British Museum 1888, OLDFIELD THOMAS very properly, 
& seems to me, reduced this species of DE Vis to a synonymy under Acrobates 
pygmeus. 
In the beginning of last year I wrote to the Director for the Queensland Mu- 
seum, Dr. HAMLYN HARRIS, asking him to send me for loan a specimen of DE Vis” 
Dromicia frontalis. Owing to the museums rules, not to forward type specimens, Dr. 
HARRIS could not send me any, but remarks in his letter following: »We have in our 
collections three specimens of Dromicia frontalis described by DE Vis in the Pro- 
ceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 1886 page 1134, a specimen of 
which was wrongly affined to Acrobates pygmeus by O. THOMAS in the British Mu- 
seum Catalogue. >» 
Dr. HARRIS apparently goes wrong in his statement. From the description of 
DE Vis to judge it is clear, that his animal can not have been a Dromicia. He mentions 
distinetly in his otherwise very superficial description that the fur in his animal not 
extends on to the tail, which always is the case with the species of the genus Dro- 
micia. And still more deciding is his statement; »a distinct patagial fold» a character 
quite typical for the genus Åcrobates, but not to be traced in any of the Dromicias. 
The Dromicias are apparently to be regarded as isolated remnants of ancient 
forms. Their present distribution is very remarkable being following: 
UED KOMAET AL CON EVA At South and Western Australia. 
2 OMC TES MANA = NINE rolla b lg Tasmania, New South Wales. 
This species has been described by KREFFT (P. Z. S. 1863, p. 49) under the 
name of Dromicia unicolor from the neighbourhood of Sydney. THOMAS considers that 
