EXISTING SPECIES OE THE GENUS PHASCOLOMYS. 
We now come to a description by Leach, published in 1815,* in 
his Zoological Miscellany. In the matter of brevity and inadequate- 
ness, it much resembles the original one of Shaw, but it is accom- 
panied by a better figure. The description is as follows : — “ Phasco- 
lomis V ombatus. P. pallide fulvescente-brunneus : naso obscuriore ; 
unguibus elongatis. Wombach. Bewick, Gen. Hist, of Quadrup., 
Ed. 4, p. 522. Habitat in Australasia.” Then he goes on, “Wom- 
bat phascolomis. Pale fulvescent-brown : nose darker : claws 
elongated : inhabits New Holland. 
For an account of the anatomical structure of the Wombat Phas- 
colomis, see Philosophical Transactions for 1808. It is named Wom- 
bat, or Wombach, by the natives of New South Wales, who kill it for 
food, its flesh being considered very delicate. The usual length of 
this animal is about 2 feet, exclusive of the tail.” Beading this, 
one would feel doubtful as to whether the writer had ever seen the ani- 
mal, but on referring to Gray’s List of the Specimens of Mammalia in 
the collection of the British Museum, p. 95, published in 1843, the follow- 
ing entry occurs : — “ b. Young : discoloured, having been in spirits. 
(The one figured in Leach, Z. Misc. t. 69).” Only five specimens of 
wombat are recorded, the one mentioned above, two from New Hol- 
land, one from Mr. Gould’s collection, and a young one from Van 
Diemen’s Land. No locality is given for Leach’s specimen, nor does 
he help us in his own description, beyond saying that its habitat is 
New Holland, and that Home described the anatomy of the species. 
Home’s specimens we know came from King Island. In Thomas’ 
catalogue (1888), apparently the same specimen is described as a 
young skin, and the locality of Tasmania is ascribed to it. It would 
be interesting to know the definite authority for this locality, as, up 
to the time when Leach published, that is, twenty-eight years before 
Gray’s catalogue was issued, there is no record of any true Tasmanian 
specimen having been sent to Europe. 
It is to be presumed that, as neither Gray nor Leach in 1815, nor 
Gray in 1843, give any definite locality for this particular specimen, 
none was known when those writers published, more especially since 
Gray carefully gives the locality of every other specimen. So far as 
the name is concerned, it does not matter, inasmuch as that of I has- 
colomys Wombat had been applied to the King Island species eight 
years before Leach published his description. There can, however, 
be no reasonable doubt that the specimen described by Leach came 
from the Bass Strait Islands. 
Cuvier, writing in 1817,t describes and figures the animal and 
its skull. He says that only one species is known which is of the 
size of a badger and lives on King Island} and that this is identical 
* Leach, p. 102, PI. 96. 
J He 0 w“riTu.iS‘A“i?mim.l, which he the _ th, 
dentition, and refers to IHi e «. thereto cll,»g ,t An, biota. 
r 43 1 
