2 ARKIV FÖR ZOOLOGI. BAND 3. N:0 14. 



sufficieiit to pro ve the prevailing opinion concerning the taxo- 

 nomy of the Giant Deer. 



In spite of the fact that Megaceros has been so unanim- 

 ously placed in this way, the position it holds in the modern 

 system can be disputed on very good reasons. 



The subfamily Cervince was 1878 by Brooke divided in 

 tvvo sections, Plesiometarcarpalia and Telemetacarpalia, and 

 this division has been accepted and maintained as natm^al. 

 To the first mentioned of these sections Cervus and Dama 

 have been referred. One of the most important characteri- 

 stics of P]esiometacarpah'a is derived from the condition of 

 the vomer, which »is never so ossified as to divide the po- 

 sterior nares into two distinct passages».^ If this characteri- 

 stic has any taxonomic value, as the present writer, in ac- 

 cordance with previous authors on this subject, thinks it has, 

 Megaceros is by the same excluded, not only from the close 

 subgeneric relationship to Dama, but from the whole section 

 Plesiometacarpaha. For, as may be seen on fig. 1, the vomer 

 of Megaceros is very strongly ossified, even posteriorly, and 

 divides the posterior nares into two completely to the end 

 separated passages. This ossification of the vomer of Mega- 

 ceros is even stronger than in Rangifer. In a skull of Mega- 

 ceros before me the thickness of the vomer just behind the 

 palatine börder amounts to 13 mm., and, although it becomes 

 much thinner posteriorly, its thickness at the posterior edge 

 is about 2 mm. This great thickness of the vomer is very 

 remarkable, the more so, as it even in front on a level with 

 the anterior end of the nasais in the same specimen measu- 

 res 9 mm. in the middle, 11 mm. basally in transversal sec- 

 tion. Between the basal and middle thickening and above 

 the lat ter the vomer is thinner, but nevertheless very well 

 ossified as its least thickness is 2 mm. 



Such a strong ossification of the vomer as the one now 

 described must of course greatly strengthen the skull. It 

 couid then be suggested that this was needed as an additio- 

 nal support in consequence of the large and heavy antiers of 

 Megaceros. It must be observed, however, that this cannot 

 be the direct cause as the vomer is situated entirely in front 

 of the antiers and their support. It is the occipital region 



* Flower & Lydecker: »An Introduction to the Stud,y of Mam- 

 mals». London 1891. 



