SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The major part of Broom's original collection of specimens ofBurramys parvusBroom has been re‐examined with the acetic acid technique. Additional information thus acquired makes it certain thatBurramys parvusdoes not belong within the Macropodidae, nor is it ancestral to them. Resemblances toHypsiprymnodon moschatusare the result of convergence, and suggested affinities withThylacoleoappear to be without adequate foundation. Burramys parvushas features in common with several genera of Phal‐angerinae, in particular withEudromicia, Cercaertus, andPetaurusand should be included in this subfamily instead of being placed in a separate monotypic subfamily. Those figured specimens of the species described by Broom from the Wombeyan Caves, New South Wales, which are at present in the Australian Museum, Sydney, must be presumed to be the types.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
W. D. L. Ride (1956) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: