bya THE AUSTRALIAN NATURALIST. 
rather nondescripts, such as the emu, having no wings but they 
run very fast.”’§ 
On the other point, namely, whether the Australian struth- 
ious bird was to be classed ina general way as an emu or 
a cassowary, there would appear not to have been perfect 
unanimity, if we may take certain details in some of the later 
accounts at their face value. Butin my opinion, and for reasons. 
which will appear when we come to consider these accounts seri- 
atim, we are hardly justified in so doing. Moreover, as will be 
evident when we come to deal with Judge-Advocate Collins’ 
contribution to the subject, which is of special interest in this 
connection, the name, New Holland Cassowary, never had any 
serious chance of supplanting the more familiar name which 
first gained currency—at least not in the Colony. 
The skin of the emu examined by Tench and his friends. 
was sent home to England in spirits, and presented to Sir 
Joseph Banks. It was afterwards mounted, and a description 
of it, together with a figure, was published in “ Phillip’s 
Voyage.” Dr. Latham is said to have been responsible for the 
former. At this time, this writer did not use the binomial 
system ; and the name he bestowed on the bird was that of 
“The New Holland Cassowary.” No comparisons are instituted 
with the ostrich or rhea, and no reasons are given for the 
decision that the bird was a cassowary. This is taken for 
granted; and then about one-half of the description is devoted 
to a consideration of the important differences between the. 
New Holland and the Common Cassowary. 
The next account of the Australian ostrich-like bird, in 
chronological order, is that to be found in Surgeon White's. 
“Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales,” a fine illustrated 
quarto, published in 1790, the preface being dated November 
18th,1788. Thisisa lengthy description of the bird described by 
Tench and Latham, the only one captured up to the date of the 
despatch of the manuscript to England; and it comprises more: 
anatomical details than are given by any of the author’s 
colleagues. Two sentences of it are all that need occupy our 
attention, as the name emu is not mentioned at all. “30th 
February, 1788. A New Holland cassowary was brought into. 
camp. This bird stands seven feet high, measuring from the 
ground to the upper part of the head, and, in every respect, is 
much larger than the common Cassowary of all authors, and 
differs so much therefrom, in its form, as to clearly proye it a 
new species” (p. 129). The adoption of Latham’s name in the 
passage quoted, the omission of all mention of the published 
views of Tench, and especially the expressions, the ‘common 
Cassowary” (used also by Latham, but not by Goldsmith), and 
of “all authors” (Goldsmith being the only author that White 
§Op. cit., p. 871, (under date 26th July, 1770). At this time apparently, copies of 
“Phillip’s Voyage’ had not been received in Sydney ; or, at least, Captain 
Hill had not seen one, ; 
