Ixxiv MAMMALOGY OF THE HIMALAYAS. 
Greek philosopher,* “has also a mane, (he is talking of the mane of the Horse), above the shoulders, but 
from this to the head along the top of the neck #¢ is very thin; it has a likewise a beard on the laryna ; 
seseeeit is about the size of the Stag......the female has no horns...... those of the male resemble the horns 
of the Dorcas, (A. Gavelle)......it inhabits Arachosia.” Any one acquainted with the Neel-ghaw will 
readily perceive the applicability of this passage to its most obvious characters: in fact Aristotle’s 
description of this animal, under the name of Hippelaphus, is more exact and minute than the descrip- 
tion of any other animal mentioned in his history; it is evidently taken from personal observation, and 
it is surprising that the application should have hitherto escaped the penetration both of critics and 
Zoologists. The older naturalists, such as Gesner and Aldrovandus may be excused for misapplying 
the passage in question, sometimes to the Elk, sometimes to the common Stag in his winter-dress, when 
the hair of the neck becomes longer than ordinary, since they were unacquainted with the form and 
characters of the Neel-ghaw ; but the continuation of the mistake by their successors, to whom the 
animal has been long familiar, is altogether unpardonable. This identification, indeed, was absurd 
enough from the beginning: the habitat of Arachosia, and the assigned form of the horns, were alone 
sufficient to distinguish the Hippelaphus from either the Elk or common Stag, independently of the 
critical absurdity of supposing Aristotle to describe such well-known animals at such length and under 
a new name: but the truth is, that all modern commentators have been misled by a wrong translation of 
the term Aopxac, employed by Aristotle, as the name of an animal, to the horns of which he compares 
those of the Hippelaphus. Now, it is to be observed that the Dorcas of the Greeks and Romans 
is universally admitted to be the Gazelle of Egypt and Northern Africa, as may be easily proved from 
many passages in Herodotus and other ancient writers. ‘Theodore Gaza, himself a Greek, and the first 
translator of Aristotle, very properly renders the word by capra, but Buffon} having criticised Gaza’s 
ignorance, and affirmed that the word should really be translated caprea, every body has since followed 
the translation of Buffon, and the Dorcas of Aristotle has been accordingly considered identical with 
the Roe-buck, whilst the Dorcas of all other ancient writers is acknowledged to be the Gazelle. 
This seems to have been one of the principal sources of error which misled Baron Cuvier, after the 
example of his predecessors, to identify the Hippelaphus of Aristotle with a species of Deer. The 
head and skin of the large Indian Sawmer had been sent to Paris by Diard and Duvaucel ; the hair of 
the neck was observed to be considerably longer and coarser than that on the rest of the body, the horns 
had only two antlers, like those of the Roe-buck, and it came from India. Baron Cuvier immediately 
concluded that he had discovered the real Hippelaphus of Aristotle, and takes considerable pains to 
prove it.{| Against this opinion of the most distinguished of modern naturalists, however, I have to 
urge objections as grave as those which lay against the ancient error which identified the Hippelaphus 
with the Stag and Elk. In the first place, as I have just shown, the fancied similarity of the horns of 
the Hippelaphus to those of the Roe-buck, arises from.a false translation of the word Dorcas ; when 
this term is properly translated, Gazelle, the horns of the Hippelaphus, to be similar to those of the 
Dorcas, should be small, round, and without branches ;—such are the horns of Neel-ghau, and such 
are not the horns of the Saumer. In the second place, the Saewmer Deer has certainly longer and stiffer 
_ hair on the neck than elsewhere, but it is equally long and rough over the whole neck, as well on the 
sides as above and below, and has no resemblance whatever to the mane of the Horse and Mule to which 
‘Aristotle compares it, In fact the description of Aristotle does not apply to it in any particular. The 
‘Saumer does not show the least appearance of the thin mane along the top of the neck, longest and 
thickest on the shoulders ; neither has it anything that can be called a beard, distinct, at least from the 
general roughness of the neck which Baron Cuvier calls its mane. But even allowing the rough hair on 
the 
4+ Oss. Foss. IV. 42. 
* Hist. ih, Ilia 5 + Hist. Nat. XI, 402. 
