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Not recommended for publication in the 'Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society'. Is in agreement with Edwin Ray Lankester, that if the specimen is to be figured, it should be drawn in stone from the original specimen, not from a cast. Suggest requesting a loan of the specimen from the Sydney Museum.

Subject: Palaeontology, Geology, Zoology

[Publication status unknown - Not in Proceedings or Transactions]

Reference number
RR/10/204
Earliest possible date
06 December 1888
Physical description
Letter on paper
Page extent
4 pages
Format
Manuscript

Creator name

William Henry Flower

View page for William Henry Flower

Use this record

Citation

William Henry Flower, Third referee's report by William Henry Flower, on a paper 'On the skull of a marsupial carnivore Thylacopardus australis' by Richard Owen, 06 December 1888, RR/10/204, The Royal Society Archives, London, https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/items/rr_10_204/third-referees-report-by-william-henry-flower-on-a-paper-on-the-skull-of-a-marsupial-carnivore-thylacopardus-australis-by-richard-owen, accessed on 10 December 2024

Link to this record

Embed this record

<iframe src="https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/embed/items/rr_10_204/third-referees-report-by-william-henry-flower-on-a-paper-on-the-skull-of-a-marsupial-carnivore-thylacopardus-australis-by-richard-owen" title="Third 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