SUB-FOSSIL REMAINS FROM KING ISLAND. 
Mr. Geo. T. Lloyd* writing in 1862, says, “ The Emu of Tas- 
mania, as T have before stated, is much smaller and daiker in 
plumage than that of Australia ; but, never numerous there, that 
noble bird is now nearly extinct.” 
One difficulty in regard to the safe identification of the true 
Tasmanian Emu lies in the fact that at a comparatively early date 
specimens were introduced from the mainland. Mr. D. Le Souef 
states, on the authority of Mr. Stephens, that one or more were 
imported from Victoria by Mr. James Cox, of Clarendon, in the 
early “fifties,” and others were introduced somewhat earlier. 
Further evidence of this is afforded by Mr. R. Gunn,f who, 
writing in 1851, says that he obtained two Emus from the Horti- 
cultural Cardens in Hobart, and adds “they were originally from 
a Port Phillip stock, but brought up in Van Dieman’s Land.” 
He goes on to say, “a leg of a Tasmanian Emu is now in my 
possession, and so far as I can judge from it, as a very imperfect 
specimen, there are differences in the arrangement and size of the 
scales, which may justify the separation of the Tasmanian Emu 
from that of New Holland.” In a foot-note, Mr. J. Milligan adds 
that, “ Captain Hepburn, of St. 1 aul’s Plains, possesses a breed of 
Tasmanian Emus, which he succeeded in rearing from eggs found 
many years since upon the high healthy land in his vicinity.” 
Two eggs have been recorded as those of the Tasmanian Emu, 
one of which is in the collection of Mr. J. W. Mellor, of Adelaide, 
and the other in that of Mr. D. Le Souef, Director of the Zoological 
Gardens, Melbourne. Both are said to be considerable smaller 
than those from the mainland. The measurements < riven by Mr. 
Le Souef are 4-85 x 3-40 inches and 4-80 x 3‘50, as compared with 
5-56 x 3-63 inches of a typical egg of a mainland form. A bone 
found by Mr. IT. IT. Scott in a limestone quarry was sent to Mr 
I). I.e Souef who identified it as the femur of an Emu smaller than 
those from the mainland, but too damaged to be of any value. 
Finally, during a recent visit to England, Mr. D Le Souef 
exammed the two skms of the Tasmanian Emu in the collection 
of the British Museum, and arrived at the conclusion that they 
were distinct from those of the mainland, a conclusion in which he 
informs us he was confirmed by the Hon W PmE *i 1 
D, Bowdler Sharp, and Mr. Barter^ wt aL° exZn^"'' 1, 
On the evidence derived from the size of the ego- Mr Le Souef 
proposed the name of Dromwus diememis for the Tasmanian 1,M 
that laid it, but exactly what this bird ™ it is ““S 
possible to say with absolute certainty. Presumahlv ll 
grantmgthat the eggs are those of thekue SS’ E^and 
* “Thirty-three years in Tasmania and Victoria, 
t R. Gunn. Proc. R. S. Tas., 1853, p. 170. 
P- 62, 1862. 
[24] 
