Skip to content

Please be aware that some material may contain words, descriptions or illustrations which will not reflect current scientific understanding and may be considered in today's context inaccurate, unethical, offensive or distressing.

Description

Not recommended for publication in the 'Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society'. There is confusion in the description of the specimen. Suggests the author give further details of the structure of the tooth to differentiate from Thylacoleo carnifex, otherwise suggests the paper be withdrawn.

Subject: Palaeontology, Geology, Zoology

[Publication status unknown - Not in Proceedings or Transactions]

Reference number
RR/10/202
Earliest possible date
18 May 1888
Physical description
Letter on paper
Page extent
8 pages
Format
Manuscript

Creator name

William Henry Flower

View page for William Henry Flower

Use this record

Citation

William Henry Flower, Second referee's report by William Henry Flower, on a paper 'On the skull of a marsupial carnivore Thylacopardus australis' by Richard Owen, 18 May 1888, RR/10/202, The Royal Society Archives, London, https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/items/rr_10_202/second-referees-report-by-william-henry-flower-on-a-paper-on-the-skull-of-a-marsupial-carnivore-thylacopardus-australis-by-richard-owen, accessed on 07 October 2024

Link to this record

Embed this record

<iframe src="https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/embed/items/rr_10_202/second-referees-report-by-william-henry-flower-on-a-paper-on-the-skull-of-a-marsupial-carnivore-thylacopardus-australis-by-richard-owen" title="Second referee's report by William Henry Flower, on a paper 'On the skull of a marsupial carnivore Thylacopardus australis' by Richard Owen" allow="fullscreen" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>

Related Fellows

Explore the collection

  • Referee Reports

    Date: 1832-1954

    This collection contains reports on scientific papers submitted for publication to the Royal Society. Started in 1832 when the system was formalised, it is a record of the origins of peer review publishing in practice.

    View collection