44 



OX DIPROTODON MINOR, 1IUX. 



So far as these measurements are concerned, the points of 

 greatest differentiation in D. minor are the length of the dental series, 

 the anterior height of the jaw and the width of the ascending ramus 

 — these are co-ordinate and might be sexual — but any such in- 

 ference is contradicted by the greatest difference of all, a positive 

 increase in the size of the condyle and condylar process, which is 

 anything but a feminine character. The least difference is shown 

 in the height of the ascending ramus, a dimension in which a female 

 jaw would be expected to shew a decrease proportional to those of 

 other parts. It may also be remarked that although the ascending 

 ramus is narrower, its muscle capacity resulting from the depth of 

 the external fossa, is little, if at all, inferior to that of D. australis. 

 If, accepting the identification of the mandible, we recollect the 

 better furniture of the upper premolar with its large prebasal 

 tubercle, we may, from the whole, decide to discard any suspicion 

 that we are dealing with the female of I). Australis. 



Obviously the mandible referred to D. minor, has much in 

 common with that described by Sir R. Owen under the provisional 

 name of D.bennetti. 



To recapitulate. — The premolars figured by Professor Huxley 

 are unmistakeably teeth of Diprotodon. The distinctness of the 

 animal they represent from D. australig, affirmed with some reserve 

 by Professor Huxley, and practically without reserve by Sir R. 

 Owen, is confirmed by fresh evidence. The differences between the 

 three premolars made known are reconcileable, the difficulty raised 

 by them less than that of admitting three allied species in the same 

 habitat. They represent one form, D. minor, which is a species, and 

 not the female of D. australis. The genus therefore contains two 

 Queensland species, D. australis Ow., and D. minor Hux. 



