34 MR. OGILBY'S MONOGRAPH 



generic divisions of the Hollow-horned Ruminants are more arbitrary and artificial than 

 those of any other group of equal extent ; and that this is perhaps the only department 

 of mammalogy which the reforming hand of inductive science has hitherto left un- 

 touched. Various attempts have been made, it is true, to correct an evil of which all 

 saw the magnitude, and to raise this branch of zoology to an equality with the more 

 advanced state of the science in general ; but these partial reforms, proceeding, as they 

 invariably did, upon narrow and confined views, and without duly appreciating the rela- 

 tive value of the characters which they employed, produced no permanent improvement, 

 and only served to emblazon the defects they were meant to erase ; so that, however 

 extraordinary it may seem, it is nevertheless indisputable, that there is at the present 

 moment no natural group of Mammals of which the true scientific characters — those 

 namely which definitely circumscribe natural genera, and influence the habits and 

 CEConomy of individual species — are so imperfectly developed and so little understood 

 by zoologists in general, as are those of the Ox, the Sheep, the Goat, and the Antelope. 

 The characters hitherto employed for that purpose, and adopted even by the most ju- 

 dicious and distinguished mammalogists of the present day, such as the form and direc- 

 tion of the horns, the solid or cancellated structure of the bony core which supports 

 them, the presence or absence of a beard on the chin, or a dewlap on the throat, the 

 comparative elevation or depression of the croup and withers, and similar trivial and 

 artificial distinctions, are a disgrace to a science which claims to be considered as a 

 branch of philosophy, and which really treats of principles and relations of consequence 

 sufficient to establish its right to that distinction. 



But it may be asked, — do such natural and influential characters really exist among 

 the Ruminantia ? Do these animals possess peculiarities of organic structure sufiiciently 

 prominent and important to point out the boundaries of their natural subdivisions, to 

 influence their habits and oeconomy, and to afford appropriate, exclusive, and obvious 

 marks of generic distinction ? And if so, how comes it that they have been so long 

 neglected, or that naturalists have hitherto failed to appreciate their due weight and 

 value ? To answer these questions properly, as well as to understand the origin and 

 extent of the confusion which prevails in this group, the arbitrary and artificial nature 

 of its generic subdivisions, and the true scientific value of the characters which I propose 

 to substitute, it will be necessary to take a short retrospect of the history of this part 

 of zoology, and to mark the progressive advances which have been made, by the accu- 

 mulation of new species, towards a more extended and accurate knowledge of the natural 

 relations and characters of the Hollow-horned Ruminants. 



n. Historical Retrospect of the Classification of the Ruminantia. 



The history of classification in this, as in other departments of zoolog}^ commences 

 with the publication of the ' Synopsis Methodica' of Ray (1693), in which the principles 



