681 
Saecophilus peioe, Be Vis. 
Sarcophilus prior, De Vis, Proo. Linii. Soe. N. S. Wales, 1883, viii., Pt. 2, p. 189. 
Ohs. The discovery of a portion of a right tibia, with the head preserved, has 
enabled Mr. De Vis to determine the former presence in Northern Australia of an 
animal allied to the Tasmanian Devil. The bone gives the impression of a better-knit 
and more muscular animal, of a size too superior to be included in the same species 
with S. ursinus, one whose last molar must have equalled, or nearly equalled in size, the 
great sectorial of a large dog. 
Loo. and Horizon. Darling Downs ((7. TV. Be Vis — Colin. Queensland Mus.) 
Dluviatile deposits. 
Genus— BASTVItUS, Geoffroy, 1796. 
(Bull. Soc. Phil. Pari.s, i., p. lOG.) 
Dastheus TiTEEErsns, Shaw. 
Didelphis viverrinus, Shaw, Gen. Zool., 1800, i., Pt. 2, p. 433. 
Dasyuriis viverrinus, Waterhouse, Nat. Hist. Mam., 1846, i., p. 442. 
,, ,, Krefft, M.am. Australia, 1871, t. 1.3. 
„ ,, Lydekker, Oat. Boss. Mam. Brit. Mus., 1887, Pt. .0, p. 268. 
Ohs. Numerous fragments of the skeleton of the Native Cat have been found 
in the "Wellington Valley Caves, but only one specimen, a nearly entire right mandibular 
ramus, has been recorded from Queensland. 
Boo. and Horizon. Gowrie, Darling Downs (G. F. Bennett— Cd\hi. Brit. Mus.) 
— Fluviatile deposits. 
MARSUPIALIA INCERTiE SEDIS. 
Genus — SCBPABHOBOH, Bamsay. 
(Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales, 1881, v., Pt. 4, p. 495.) 
ScEPAENODON Ramsati, Owen. 
Scepamodon Ma/mayi, Owen, Phil. Trans., 1884, clxxv., Pt. 1, p. 245, 1. 12. 
Ohs. But one species of this genus, and of that only the teeth are known. They 
resemble the scalpriform incisors of the upper jaw of Rodents, but the microscopic 
structure of the dentine has a nearer resemblance to that of the incisors of the large 
extinct Pliascolonus. 
Scepamodon Bamsayi is believed by Prof. Owen to have been a large massive 
animal, and in all probability marsupial. Mr. Richard Lydekker has recently suggested* 
that it is identical with Owen’s genus Pliascolonus ; but Mr. De Vis, who has had far 
better opportunities of studying the question, remarks—" Pliascolonus, Owen, is 
demonstrably good; but the ground on which it has been separated— namely, by 
identification with Scepamodon, a determination so improbable in itself that nothing 
short of direct proof should suffice to give it currency— appears to me quite inadequate 
to say the least.”! Not only does Mr. De Vis combat the view that the teeth known as 
Scepamodon Bamsayi “ grew in the upper jaw of Pliascolonus,” but he believes that 
" they include the teeth from both jaws of the otherwise unknown animal.”J His reasons 
for this opinion are too lengthy for quotation here, but are well worth perusal by those 
interested in the question. His final paragraph is— “ It must be concluded that both 
* Cat. Foss. Mam. Brit. Mus., Pt. 5, 1887, p. 159 ; and Proo. R. Soo., xlix., p. 60. 
f Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales, 1891, vi. (2), p. 237. 
t Ibid,, p. 258. 
