StJB-FbSSIL REMAINS FROM KING ISLAND. 
a skeleton in Florence • These three are umloubto.llv those 
taken from Kangaroo Island by Hamlin s expedition. In inhhtion 
there is the doubtful specimen discovered in , ; , «' , T 0 ' > ' 1 }>i' J . ,r ; 
ll.o. Forbes, in regard to wliieh the lion. Wa ter Ivolbsi bild 
s „yst— “In addition to Deeres or Kangaroo Island, also Minders, 
King Island, and Tasmania had Ennis living on them at the time 
of iron’s visit, and I believe, if authentic specimens from these 
localities were in existence, we should lind that each of these 
islands had had a distinct species or race of Emus. Taking this 
for granted, and also taking into account that it is slightly 
different from the type ot /). psvo/ii, l have come to the con- 
clusion that the Liverpool specimen is an immature, though full 
grown, individual from one of these other islands ; hut it is not 
possible from this one rather poor specimen to separate it from 
the Kangaroo Island species, especially as there is absolutely no 
indication of the origin of this specimen.” Lhe only other remains 
of the Kangaroo Island Emu are two bones, one a tibio-tarsus and 
the other a tarso-metatarsus, of which, through the courtesy of 
Professor E. C. Stirling, the Director of the South Australian 
Museum, we arc able to give illustrations. 
Dr. Giglioli is of opinion that the Liverpool specimen is 
identical with the Paris and Florence specimens. Most unfortu- 
nately, there is no evidence whatever of where it came from or by 
whom it was collected. A few bones from King Island were also 
sent to Dr. Giglioli by the late Mr. Alex. Morton, and while 
pointing out the necessity of securing a larger series of bones from 
the islands Dr. Giglioli expressed the opinion that the King Island 
specimens belonged to I), peroni. 
With the comparatively large series of bones now available it 
is possible to form a tolerably correct idea of the average size of 
the King Island bird. 1 nlortunately, we have onlv the measure- 
ments of the hones of one specimen of D. peroni but we have 
the advantage of knowing that this was full grown, as it lived for 
some time after its arrival in France either at the Jardin des 
I laut.es oi at the ( hateau ot Malmaisou, and we mav therefore 
icgai d it. as piobably an average sized specimen — more espeeiullv 
as theie does not appeal to be any great discrepance m size 
amongst the Paris and the Florence specimens. 
* ln h,s tf ubgue ot tho K.ss.l Organic Remains. Mammalia, ami Birds contained in 
Museum of the Royal ollego ot Surgeons,' London. KS45, Owen makes the 
mum- statement m .ward to spoc.men No. L>l>3 : •• A eorres,K.nding section of the 
' • a youngEiueu 0 . >. showing o smaller proportional ££££ 5 .he 
1 " ■’ ", ll y '-hont whence the nerves of the legs originate, and 
AV" Kuan and proportions of the iline plates; esiwdally 
t \ \ V’’ | " u,nU >•' New Zealand "ho 
il-.rs.we m '■ „ « " f '' ' 10 “W 1 ' 08 tho of firomaiu* .1 hr. 
luii .sueemnou or a iv iv i , . 
the Muse 
follow iug 
pelvis of a young ibiuou | • afcr) showing a smaller proportional of the 
spinal canal lor tho enlargement o the chord whence the nerves of tho le-s origh vto and 
the more marked ditlerenee in the form and .1 .■ l » ue ’ ... 
behind the aoetahulum. " 
also figures, in t’lafe xxxv. 
60 ' i,0d " Un,H li "' U ' ' 1 and XX ' 
x\xvn. 
