EXISTING SPECIES OF THE GENUS PHASCOLOMYS. 
9. Illiger. — Prodromus Syst. Mamm. et Avium, 1811, pp. 77, 
78. Refers to what is evidently the species sent to 
France from the Bass Strait Islands under the name 
of Phascolomys fusca, and proposes the genus Amblotis 
for Bass’ animal, in consequence of the wrong descrip- 
tion of teeth given by Collins. 
10. Flinders. — A Voyage to Terra Australis, vol. i, p. 206, 
1814. Describes the finding of wombats on King 
Island in April, 1802. Some were taken to England 
by Brown. 
11. Leach. — Zoological Miscellany, p. 102, PI. 96, 1815. Gives 
a very brief description of the animal, which he calls 
Phascolomis vombatus, together with a figure. He 
mentions Bewick’s and Home’s accounts as referring 
to the same animal, the usual length of which he says 
is 2 feet. 
12. Cuvier (6?.). — Regne Animal, Tome i., p. 184, PI. 51, 1817. 
Says that only one species is known; it is the size of 
a badger, lives on King Island, and is identical with 
Shaw’s Didelphis ursina. Figures a brown variety from 
a stuffed specimen in the Paris Museum. 
13. Lesson and Garnot. — InDuperry Voyage autour du Monde, 
Tome i., p. 399, 1826. The authors say that they 
could only secure one skin of the wombat in Sydney, 
and that it is only known from the southern coasts of 
Australia and the Islands of Bass Strait. 
14. Owen.- — Catalogue, Royal College of Surgeons, 1831. Gives 
the distribution of Phascolomys wombat as “ King 
Island, and near Port Jackson,” and makes no 
reference to Tasmania. 
15. Owen. — P.Z.S., p. 49, 1836. Description of the anatomy 
of Phascolomys wombat that had lived in the gardens 
for five years and weighed 59J lbs. 
16. Gunn. — -Annals Nat. Hist., Vol. i., p. 103, 1838. Says that 
Phascolomys, the wombat, is commonly known as the 
badger, and is found in various parts. One that he 
caught measured 36 inches in length and 34 in circum- 
ference. 
17. Gray. — Annals Nat. Hist., Vol. i., p. 107, 1838. In a note 
appended to Gunn’s paper (15) Gray says that he has 
seen Bass’ specimen at Newcastle, and that it was the 
same “ as the one we now usually receive from Van 
Diemen’s Land ” (The specimen was Hunter’s, not 
Bass’). 
[ W 1 
