420 



A NEW DEER FROM CENTRAL AMERICA. 



The condition of the teeth and of the sutures at the base of the skull is 

 shown in the following table: 



Catalogue g ei 



nnuiln i • 



Dentition. 



mi 



22828 



m 



nolo 



14212 



13038 



HUs 



22829 

 13485 



Milk 



...do 



...do 



Permanent 



...do 



...do 



...du 



Suture be- 

 ■f § tween basi- 



ls Condition of teetb. occipital 

 ~ J and basi- 



£ p. \ spbeuoid. 



i m*1 5 



Milk 



...do 



Permanent 



Unworn 



Slightly worn 



Moderately worn 

 Well worn 



i m ■ 

 All .. 

 All .. 

 All .. 

 All .. 



<, »'<: I 



) »!■<: s 



\ m* <, 



All ... Slightly worn.. 



Suture be- 

 tween basi- 

 sphenoid 



and pre- 

 spbennid. 



Open 



. . do . . . . 



...do.. 



Closed . 

 ...do.. 

 ...do. 

 . . . do . . 



Opjn . . 



...do... 



Closed . . 



Open 

 .. do 



...do.. 



....do .. 

 ...do.. 

 . do.. 

 Closed . 



Open 



....do.... 

 Open 



m m 



106 



193 



223 

 224 

 225 

 234 



III HI. 



None. 

 None. 



51 



96 



-<vi 

 100 

 104 



193 None. 



194 



202 



None. 

 None. 



Nearly cut. 



i UaU'cut. 



{ Almost in position. 



§ Antlers diseased. 



The question of whether G. clavatus may not be identical with some 

 previously-described species having simple antlers merits more serious 



attention. 



It must be taken into consideration at the outset that in dealing with 

 species having simple horns we are debarred from employing one series 

 of characters which are universally used in distinguishing between the 

 different groups of deer with branched antlers, namely, those drawn from 

 the form of the antlers themselves. While it is fitting, for example, that 

 the species of Dama should be separated from the Cerrus group, on 

 account of the difference in the form of the antlers, if for no other 

 reason, it will not, on the other hand, be logical to bring together into 

 one group all species possessing simple antlers; for, on accouut of their 

 very simplicity, these antlers lack tangible characters. We are forced, 

 then-fore, to turn toother parts to find the means of discrimination. 



It is unquestionable, I believe, that our new deer belongs to the genus 

 Cariacus, but the question as to which subgenus of the group it falls in 

 remains to be answered. Our first inclination would be to place it in 

 Coassus, on account of its lacking branched antlers, but, as we have 

 just pointed out, it is unsafe to trust to this negative character. In faet, 

 on account of other characters which we will now consider, C. clavatui 

 can not be placed in that subgenus. 



In Sir Victor Brooke's Revision of the Cervida;,* four subgenera of 

 Cariacus are recognized. These are, Furcifer, Blastoceros, Cariacusl 

 and Coassus. The first two of these groups I shall be obliged in the 

 present connection to regard as sections of the subgenus Cariccus, for, 

 aside from the form of the antlers, I find no tangible characters in 

 # Proceed. Zool. Soc, London, 1878, pp. 883-928. 



