666 
Genus—PHASCOLONUS, Owen, 1872. 
(Phil. Trans., olxii., p. 248.) 
PlIASCOLONUS GIGAS, Oweil. 
Phascolmnys gigas, Owen, Enoyclop. Brit., 18, o9, xvii., p. 17.5, f. 114. 
„ (Phascolonus) gigas, Owen, Phil. Trans., 1873, clxii., Pt. 2, pp. 248 and 255, t. 36-38, f. 1, 3, and 
4, t. 39, f. 1-3, t. 40. 
” ” •> Owen, Extinct Mara. Australia, 1877, p. 346, t. 61-63, f. 1, 3, and 4, t. 64, 
f. 1-3, t. 65. 
Phascolonus gigas (pars.), Lydekker, Cat. Eo.ss. Mam. Brit. Mus., 1887, Pt. 6, p. 157. 
„ „ Be Vi.s, Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales, 1891, vi. (2), Pt. 2, p. 237. 
Obs. ior thi.s gigantic Wombat, equalling as it did the Wild Ass in size. Prof. 
Owen has proposed the sub-generic name of Phascolonus, but both Mr. Lydekker and 
Mr. C. W . De Vis have raised it to generic rank. 
Loc. and Horizon. King’s Creek, Darling Downs {The late 0. H. Hartmann— CoWn. 
Bnt. Mus.) ; G-owrie, Darling Downs {Sir D. Cooper— CoWn. Brit. Mus.) ; Eton Yale, 
Darling Downs (it. S. Hill — Oolln. Brit. Mus.) ; Tributary of the Condamine Eiver, St. 
Jean Station {S. St. Jean — Colin. Australian Mus.) ; Clifton Plains, Darling Downs 
{Sir F. Hicholson Colin. Queen’s College, Cork) — Eluviatile deposits. 
Family— NOTOTHEEIIDxE. 
Genus— NOTOTEEBIUM, Owen, 1845. 
(Brit. Assoc. Report for 1844, p. 231.) 
Ohs Hototherhm is second only in bulk to Piprotodon. The skull of the 
former is shorter in proportion to its breadth and depth than that of the latter. 
Noiotherium resembles the Koala and Wombats, whilst Piprotodon is more nearly 
allied in many of its characters to the Kangaroos.* * * § Noiotherium does not possess 
incisors of the relative size and shape and persistent growth characteristic of Pipro- 
todon, but it surpasses the latter in both absolute and relative size of the zygomatic 
arches. 
The dental formula of Noiotherium is i. c. m. = 28. 
By some knikovs Zi/gomaturus, Macleay, is considerecras distinct from Noto- 
therium, but Sir E. Owen believes them to be identical. Eecently Mr. De Vis has 
revived this question, f and arrives at the following conclusions: — 1st. That the upper 
premolar of JS ototheriwn shows a departure not more than generic from that of 
Piprotodon, and consequently that both genera belong to one family, the Kototheriid®, 
which also includes Euowenia, and perhaps Sfhenomerus. 2nd. That Zygomaturus is a 
good genus, and its affinity with the Nototheriidm is, to say the least, doubtful. 
8rd. Ihe mau^bular structure and dentition of Zygomaturus are, as yet, unknown, as 
it was one of the rarer animals of its day, the paucity of its remains contrasting 
strongly with the abundance of those of Noiotherium. These conclusions have been 
combated by Mr. E. Lydekker, J who regards the previous determination of Owen, 
that Noiotherium and Zygomaturus are one and the same, as correct. 
Mr. De Vis has also described a humerus which he ascribes to Noiotherium.^ 
* Mr. Be Vis informs me that he considers that this view is by no means favoured by the pelvis and 
loot-bones which are essentially phascolomine. Notwithstanding its molar system Digrotodon is far more 
a W ombat than a Kangaroo. 
t Note on the Genera Zygomaturus and Nototherium. Proc. B. Soc. Queensland, 1888, v. Pt 3 n 111 
$ Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., 1889, iii., p. 149. ’ 
§ Proc. Linn. Soo. N. S. Wales, 1883, viii., Pt, 3, p. 404. 
