Miscellanea. 
399 
Mr. Ronald Gunn, and one from New South Wales was presented 
by my late friend and admirable botanist, Mr. Allan Cunningham, 
F.L.S, 
The specimens from Van Diemen’s Land are much smaller (the 
largest being 6 in. 4 lines long), and more depressed and truncated 
behind, and have two moderate-sized oblong holes in the hinder 
part of the palate. The specimen from New South Wales is one 
inch longer, and has two large triangular holes in the end of the 
palate. All the three specimens differ in the size of the teeth, 
and especially in the size and relative position of the upper cutting 
teeth. 
1. The least of the Van Diemen’s Land skulls has rather small 
grinders, but the upper cutting teeth are small, compressed, 
rather diverging from each other, forming an angle in front, and 
only touching each other at the truncated inner edge. The 
crowns of these teeth are 5 lines long and 2| lines wide. The 
lower cutting teeth are small, with a roundish crown. 
2. The other Van Diemen s Land skull, which is rather larger 
in all its measurements, has larger grinders. The cutting teeth 
are much larger: the upper large, oblong, diverging from each 
other, forming together a segment of a circle in front, and only 
touching each other by the inner edge. The crowns of these 
teeth are 5\ lines long and 3£ lines wide. 
3. The skull from New South Wales has the teeth very like 
those of the small Van Diemen’s Land specimen, but rather 
larger. The upper cutting teeth are considerably larger and rather 
more triangular, but in the same angular position. 
It is desirable that more of these skulls should be compared, to 
determine whether these are only individual variations, or that 
there are more than one species confounded under this name. I 
am inclined to the former view ; but if this is the case, it shows 
that the skulls and teeth do not present such good specific cha¬ 
racters as many zoologists are willing to believe .—Annals and 
Mug. of Nat. History , July, 1847. 
