I 



I 



THE SEROWS, G0RAL8 AND TAKHSTS OF BRITISH INDIA, oil 



Hnvida) which did not include the Gorals at all. Hence the name 

 could not be applied to those animals. Quite wisely anil reasonably, 

 rlieretbre, Gray, when he revised the group in a series of papers 

 dating from 1843 to 1852, reserved Caprkornis for the Serows and 

 substituted Ncemorhedus for Kemas for the Gorals. Thus more than 

 sixty years ago the names of these two genera were fixed in strict 

 accordance with all the rules of nomenclature and common sense. A 

 rliousand pities was it therefore that Blanford, when writing his classic 

 volume on the Mammals of India, put everything wrong again by 

 ignoring Gray's decision and going back to the point from which 

 this author started, namely to Ogilby. But recognising that 

 Ncemorhedus must stand either for Serows or Gdrals, he abolished 

 ('apricornis,Vise<\ Ncemorhedus instead and reserved the inadmissible 

 name Cemas for the Gorals, That Blanford's example was followed by 

 most of his successors is not a surprising thing. But it was not followed 

 by all for the question of the names was confused still further by 

 Mr. Lydekker who m 1900 rightly dropped Kemas as inadmissible for 

 the Gorals and wronglv vesiculated a name long consigned to oblivion, 

 namely, Mortragus, which was given by Gray in 1871 to the Chinese 

 (Toral called caudatus by Milne Edwards, a species very closely allied 

 to the one described in the following pages as Ncemorhedus griseus.* 



These few words of introduction on the nomenclature of Serows and 

 Gorals adopted in the following pages are, I think, rendered necessary 

 by the fact that sportsmen and naturalists in India will otherwise be at 

 a loss to understand the reasons for settino- aside the nomenclature in 

 Blanford's monograph and also in Mr, Lydekker's Great and Small 



* Althoa<;h I clearly point-^d ail this out early in 1908, my friend Mr. Lydekker still 

 adheres to the modified version df Blanford's nomeclature he had adopted (see P.Z. S., Dec. 

 1908, p. 941) on the pretext that it was justified by duration of use. Thisarfjument, coming 

 from the author who had substituted the practically unknown and never previously adopted 

 name Urotraqus for the familiar term Kemas is a little quaint. Moreover, although I 

 should not admit that the argument had any validity, even if true, it happens to be demon- 

 strably nntrue. For Capiicornk Mas used exclusively for the Serows in 1836, whereas 

 .VojmorAediw was not nsed exclusively for them, so fares I have ascertained, until 1891. 

 Even if, as I siispect. Mr. Lydekker relies upon " frequency ■' instead of "duration" all that 

 I can say is that the statement may be true or false. I take it that Mr. Lydekker will no 

 more attempt to substantiate it than I shall to disprove it by counting the number of times 

 that Ca^pricornu and Ncemorhedus have been applied exclusively to Serows in zoological 

 literature ; but I have a shrewd suspicion that Capricornis would come out a long way 

 first since it was used over and over aj:;ain, in the sense in which I have used it, by that 

 most voluminous writer Pe're Heude in the nineties of the last century. 



