165 
sideration only of the horns has led to very unnatural approximations. 
For example, Cuvier associates the Addax with the Indian Antelope ; 
and Mr. Blyth, his translator, inserts his belief that it is more allied 
to the Coudou, which I think modern naturalists will allow to be 
equally wide of the truth. Again, the species forming the genera 
Aigocerus and Nemorhedus of Major Smith are placed together in 
the ‘ Régne Animal,’ and Mr. Blyth hints that the Anoa may be allied 
to the Oryx. 
It is certainly remarkable, that while the teeth have contributed so 
important a share in the characters by which the mammalia have 
been arranged by various authors, they should have been so entirely 
overlooked in the members of the present division ; for notwithstand- 
ing the great uniformity and strongly-marked character pervading 
the Ruminant dentition, very decided characters may frequently be 
found in the form and direction of the incisors, and in the presence 
or absence of the supplemental lobe in the molars; and it is the 
more to be wondered at when we consider that the incisors, from 
their position, may often easily be seen in dried specimens, and that 
the character alluded to in the molars has been found of considerable 
value in the interpretation of fossil remains. The remaining cha- 
racters I shall have to bring forward consist of certain little details of 
structure in the skull, which are very easy to be perceived, and 
which, as I have found them constant in those groups which I have 
characterized by their means, I trust may meet with due consideration 
from naturalists. 
Of late years, while some zoologists have remained content to call 
all hollow-horned Ruminants that are neither oxen, sheep, nor goats, 
by the generic name Antilope, another class have run into the extreme 
of the modern fashion by using every trifling external difference 
visible in dried skins, or recorded in books (sometimes not even ex- 
cepting size and colour), to divide them so extensively, that the cha- 
racters of the genera become more difficult to remember than those 
of the species. Considering the difficulty of observing many of these 
characters in dry specimens, and of bearing such trivial details in the 
memory, it is not to be wondered at that many errors of observation 
have crept in, a few of which I will point out as I proceed, limiting 
myself in my own diagnoses to the characters of the skull and horns. 
There is no doubt that the suborbital sinus, improperly called “ lacry- 
mal sinus” (translated into “tear-pit”” by some authors, “‘tear-bag”’ by 
Mr. Gray), will form a valuable means of distinction when its structure 
in all the genera has been sufficiently observed upon fresh individuals, 
or on the parts preserved in fluid, provided that we do not attach too 
much importance to its relative dimensions; but although its dried 
appearance may assist discrimination, we cannot venture to describe it. 
As to inguinal pores and interdigital pits, it must always be difficult, 
and frequently impossible to determine their presence or absence in 
specimens that are dried and mounted. Tufts upon the joints of the 
limbs, and the extent of bare space upon the muzzle, are certainly 
much too trivial to warrant generic distinction, and never mark out 
any particular natural group. 
