662 U. S. P. R. R. EXP. AND SURVEYS—ZOOLOGY—GENERAL REPORT. 
shades into the color of the back; beneath, it is entirely white, although very little of this is 
seen when viewed from above. 
The mottled hairs, examined individually, are nearly black, with a subterminal annulus of 
bright yellowish chestnut, very distinctly defined ; the basal portion is cinereous. The black 
colors predominate on the back, the cinereous on the sides. The annuli are about ;'; of an inch 
long on the back, where they are narrowest, and widen to about a quarter of an inch on the 
sides and on the shoulders. 
I have not had an opportunity of examining any but winter skins of this animal; the summer 
coat is much lighter, according to Dr. Newberry, being of a nearly uniform fulvous brown, and 
the colors generally less distinct. According to Dr. Gray, of the British Museum, the summer 
hairs are not ringed at all. . 
There is great uniformity in all the skins as to color, the only difference being in a specimen 
from Monterey, in which the subterminal annulus on the hairs is much lighter. Specimens 
from San Diego are considerably smaller than those further north, following the same rule with 
the Virginia deer. 
The C. columbianus is readily distinguishable from the other American species. Its horns 
and color are entirely distinct from C. virginianus. Its affinities are closer to C. macrotis, 
having much the same horns; it is smaller, however; its general color is darker ; it has a dusky 
border to the forehead, and is without the white patch on the rump. The hair is finer. The 
gland on the leg is shorter. My comparisons of the hoofs with those of Dr. Newberry’s speci- 
men of C. macrotis lead me to different conclusions from Mr. Peale, as I find them to be shorter, 
broader, and higher, and thus more cordate beneath, in C. columbianus than in C. macrotis. 
This species was first brought to the attention of naturalists by Lewis and Clark, who called it 
the-black-tailed fallow deer of the Pacific, fully appreciating its differences from the mule deer 
of the Missouri. For many years, however, it was without a scientific name, owing to the 
.general impression that it was the same with the Cervus macrotis of Say. Dr. Richardson 
unwittingly described specimens in the museum of the Zoological Society as the C. macrotis, 
his description agreeing very accurately with the subject of the present article. He figures a 
fine specimen of rather unusual development of horns, and the plate and description of Audubon 
and Bachman are likewise taken from the same animal. i 
In 1848, Mr. Peale described this species as C. lewisti, having been the first naturalist who 
fully understood the relations between it and C. macrotis. For this he was well fitted, having 
been with Mr. Say when, in 1817, the Cervus macretis was discovered near the Rocky Moun- 
tains. Audubon and Bachman subsequently described it as C. richardsonii. 
Richardson; however, in 1829, gives a notice of Lewis and Clark’s black-tailed deer, under 
the name of Cervus macrotis, var. columbianus, referring to the article of the above authors. 
This it would seem proper to retain as being really a scientific name for the black-tailed deer, 
even though not supposed to be entitled to full rank, but only as a variety of C. macrotis. 
Where an author considers an animal as a variety of some other, and gives to it a suitable 
systematic name, as such, it would seem but right and proper, if a species is to be established, 
to take the name already prescribed, rather than to increase the list of synonyms by a new 
one. The same principle will apply equally well when a sub-genus is to be raised to the rank 
of a genus. 
ee 
