THE ECUIDlirA FROM QXTEENSLAND. 



417 



Peters and Q. Doria *, of Prof. Eolleston f, of Mr. E. P. Eamsay, 

 and of Prof. Gervais, to detail the widely marked differences which 

 appertain to the skull of the Northern New-Guinea Echidna, 

 {Acanthoglossus) hruijnii. Size, length and curvature of beak, 

 &c. are appreciable at a glance, and cannot be mistaken. 



On the skull of the Port-Moresby Echidna, E. {Tachyglossus) 

 lawesii, no data are yet published to enable a comparison to be 

 made. 



I may say I regret the change of generic name from tbe well- 

 known and established Echidna to that of Tachyglossus, which 

 latter, Prof. Peters points out, has priority. I should prefer also 

 that of Proechidna for Acanthoglossus, as incidentally hinted by 

 Prof Gervais {I. c. p. 43). 



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 offering any distinction from that of tlie 

 wide-spread Echidna hystrix ; and so far as skull alone is con- 

 cerned, that termed E. setosa cannot positively be distinguished 

 from E. hystrix. On this latter head and that of supposed 

 exterior distinctive characteristics, I look forward to the continua- 

 tion of Prof. Gervais's admirable memoir to furnish us with evi- 

 dence of a more decisive nature than at present can be gathered 

 from the scattered published data, 



Capt. Armit's note seems to be useful in determining the animal's 

 northern range in Australia. But I may add that X trust he will 

 endeavour, by further investigations on the spot, to clear up those 

 enigmas in the procreation and development of the Monotremes 

 wbich I have mentioned in the footnote to his own paper. 



* Ann. del Mus. Civ. di Sci. Nat. de Geneva, 1876, torn. ix. p. 183, " De^ 

 Bcrizione di una nuova specie di Tachyglossus proveniente della Nuova Q-uinea 

 settentrionale." 



t Beport Brit. Assoc. 1877r 



LINN. JOUEN. — ZOOLOGY, VOL. XIY. 



31 



