| OCR Text |
Show 1885.] MR. R. COLLETT ON ECHIDNA ACANTHION. 149 and in a later article (1881, p. 737) a similar statement is made regards the district of Toowoomba, not far from Brisbane (27|° S. lat.) by Mr. George Bennett, his son. Moreover, Mr. Macleay says in an article in Proc. Linn. Soc. N e w South Wales, 1884, vol. viii. p. 425, that he has had the Echidna in confinement from the district of Brisbane. Thus it is evident that the Echidna is a well-known animal in that part of Queensland. In all these papers the said species is entered under the name of E. hystrix, i. e. acideata, and, moreover, as several of the specimens collected have been examined in London by Prof. Owen and others, there seems no reason to doubt that they really belong to this well-known South-Australian species. In June 1878, again, Capt. Armit mentions in the Journ. Linn. Soc. N e w South Wales, vol. xiv. p. 411, that North Queensland is also inhabited by the Echidna, which he found numerous at Georgetown, 200 miles west of Cardwell, and he states that it is met with at least up to 18° S. lat., and according to his opinion also will be found on the Leichhardt ranges and throughout the length and breadth of the Cape-York peninsula. Capt. Armit gives us no definite information as to the species to which he refers the Echidna of the Cardwell district, nor does he furnish any description of it. But he sent to the Linnean Society in London a dried skull to which, according to Dr. Murie, the following label was attached : - " Head of Tachyglossus (hystrix 1), $ , killed near Georgetown in 18° S. lat. Nov. 1876." This skull has been examined by Dr. Murie and described in the Journ. Linn. Soc. vol. xiv. p. 413, where he concludes his researches with the following words : - " In conclusion I would state that, from the data which have come under m y observation, we cannot regard Capt. Armit's animal found in Queensland as offering any distinction from the wide-spread Echidna hystrix" As mentioned before, there seems to be no reason to doubt that the Echidna that occurs in the district of Brisbane really belongs to E. aculeata, which thus extends from the most southern part of Australia at least as far north as the 27|° S. lat. in South Queensland. On the other hand, it is highly improbable that Capt. Armit's specimens from North Queensland could have been identical with the said species, although Dr. Murie has with the greatest accuracy compared the skull mentioned above with five skulls of the species from South xlustralia and Tasmania, without being able to find any specific distinction between them. It will be shown by the following that Dr. Murie has given at least one brief character (without attributing much importance to it, on account of the insufficient materials), which has, however, proved to be constant for the species:-"The female Queensland skull .... is barely appreciably narrower across the cerebral area, but decidedly lower in the same region." Amongst the interesting collection of mammals brought home to the Museum of the University of Christiania by Dr. Lumholtz |
