278 W. S. Macleay, Esq., on the “ Bunyip.” 
so-called Bunyip, of which so many unintelligible accounts have 
been given in the Sydney papers; for the Bunyip is said to be a 
solitary aquatic animal, whereas this skull must have belonged to 
a solipede, which, if full-grown, would have delighted in grass, 
dry land, and the society of its own species. In my judgment, 
however, the animal is not new, and this skull, when compared 
with the one from the Hawkesbury, only serves to show the ex¬ 
treme limits between which all monstrous variation of the place 
of the eyes in the horse can possibly occur. 
1 have the honour to be, 
Gentlemen, 
Your obedient servant, 
W. S. MACLEAY. 
Elizabeth Bay, 5th July, 1847. 
Art. XXII. On the Huon Pine, and on Microcachrys, a New 
Genus of Coniferce from Tasmania; together with remarks 
upon the Geographical Distribution of that Order in the 
Southern Hemisphere. By Joseph Dalton Hooker, M.D., 
R.N., Botanist to the Antarctic Expedition. 
(From the London Journal qf Botany , Vol. IV.) 
Long as the Island of Tasmania has been colonized by Europeans, 
its noblest trees, and those too belonging to that most readily 
recognized and important Natural Order (the “ Pines"), have, 
until quite lately, been little understood by Botanists. Whilst 
the continent of Australia was known to possess numerous 
species of Callitris and Podocarpus, and New Zealand has been 
celebrated as yielding a remarkable proportion of Coniferce, 
Tasmania was generally supposed to produce much fewer of these 
most useful trees. Such, however, is not in reality the case; for 
the island in question is now proved to contain a greater number 
of species in proportion to its area, and these of more peculiar 
forms than any other country. The fact of their having so long 
remained unknown, or at least unrecorded, is mainly owing to 
