NOTE. 
Before passing' in review the skull characters of Xototherium 
tasmmlicuni. 1 wish to say a word upon the King Island specimen. 
In my published paper 1 stated that i would like to see Xoto¬ 
therium victorias again elevated to the rank of a true species, little 
thinking that in about a year the material with which to open up 
the question would be in my hands. But having shown (supra) 
that Prof. Owen’s specific characters re-appear in the King Island 
animal, the interesting question of geographical distribution 
naturally Crops up. 
The bones upon which the species X. victorias were founded 
came from the shores of Lake \ ictoria. about 400 miles as the 
crow flies from the grave of the King Island animal, but upon the 
very line that the last land bridge between that island and tin- 
mainland evidently extended. All sciences have contributed data 
to prove that the present-day fauna on King Island approaches 
much more closely to that of the mainland than it does to the 
essentially insular fauna of I asmania—always using these words 
with regard to a limited range in time as respecting isolation. And 
in this connection the fact may be recalled that even the King 
Island emu approached more closely to the Kangaroo Island bird, 
than it did to the Tasmanian or mainland form. 1 he time is not 
ripe for much speculation about this last land bridge, but one 
cannot but ask. Is there a hint here respecting pleistocene faunal 
distribution? Or is the likeness between the King Island 
Nototherium and that of Lake \ ictoria. and the King Island emu 
and that of Kangaroo Island of no geographical importance? Dr. 
Xoetling has published a chart setting forth his views upon the 
question of these old land bridges, but does not carry his lines 
west of Tape Otway. Although, of course, iargely speculative, 
this chart is of much value, and should be consulted by those 
interested in such matters. 
Also, in ’‘Memoir No. 3” of the Xational Museum, Mel¬ 
bourne, Prof. Baldwin Spencer ably deals with the land bridge 
between Australia and King Island, showing that a river ran 
through the north-western part of it, traversing low ground, while 
the present King Island was the mountain table land of that day. 
Widelv considered, it is obvious that with Diprotodont re¬ 
mains cropping up at Colac (as recorded by Prof. McCoy), and 
at King Island and Lake Victoria, and closely similar birds at 
King and Kangaroo Islands, we are in possession of four cardinal 
points with which to start a land reconstruction chart. 
But whatever the land bridge may have been, certain it is 
that it broke earlier between King Island and Tasmania than it 
did between King Island and the mainland, or else King Island 
