OF THE HOLLOW-HORNED RUMINANTS. 39 



sociated with the Antelopes, till this group became involved in almost inextricable con- 

 fusion and inconsistency, and finally ceased to possess a single character, however 

 trifling or unimportant, either exclusively appropriate to the genus, or even common to 

 the generality of its component species. 



These inconsistencies, and the insufficiency of the generic characters which gave rise 

 to them were too palpable to escape the notice of either the practical or theoretical 

 zoolo-ist Various attempts were accordingly made to discover a remedy. For a long 

 time ''as has been already observed, these were confined to the subdivisions of the genus 

 Antilope into subordinate groups, according to the form and curvature of the horns, 

 as originally indicated by Pallas, a method which served tolerably well for the faciht^s 

 of study and description, but which was obviously destitute of any pretence to scientific 

 principle The rise of the French school of zoology, however, towards the close of the 

 last century, by overthrowing the scientific despotism of Linn«;us, gave a new impulse 

 to this as to every other department of Natural History, and zoologists soon began to 

 perceive the necessity of searching for more permanent, exclusive, and essential charac- 

 ters The illustrious Illiger, in his ' Prodromus Systematis Mammaliura et Avium, 

 pubUshed in 1811, took the lead in this reform, by introducing for the first time into 

 the characters of the genera Bos, Capra, and Antilope, the consideration of the muzzle 

 and lachrymal sinus ; and his principles were quickly adopted and applied, in successive 

 monographs, to subdivide the latter genus into something more nearly approaching 

 natural groups than the old principle admitted, by Lichtenstein, De BlainviUe and 

 Hamilton Smith. The publication of IlUger's ' Prodromus ' may be considered, there- 

 fore as an epoch in the history of these animals, since it undoubtedly led to a partial 

 substitution of natural characters for the purely empirical and arbitrary diagnoses for- 

 merly employed to distinguish the subordinate groups of the genus Antilope, and thereby 

 promoted not only the recognition of specific difterences, but, in a very considerable 

 degree, the study of natural relations. . i • .• e 



The monograph of Dr. Lichtenstein', pubhshed in 1812, contains descriptions of 

 twenty-nine species, exclusive of the Grysbok and Orabie, which he considers to be 

 onlv varieties of the Steenbok. The whole are distributed into four groups, charac- 

 teri;ed by the presence or absence of horns in the females, and of lachrymal sinuses he 

 existence or non-existence of a dewlap, and the comparative length of the tail .but the 

 author was in many cases ignorant of the characters of particular species, and the com- 

 position of his groups is consequently faulty in proportion. The divisions, however, are 

 ex edingly well imagined, and less encumbered with trivial characters than those of 

 De BlainvUle and Hamilton Smith: had Dr. Lichtenstein been more correctly ac- 

 nuainted with specific characters, and availed himself of the form of the muzzle, already 

 employed by Illiger, his distribution of the hollow-horned Ruminants would have pro- 

 bably required Uttle improvement at the hands of his successors. 



M. de BlainviUe. whose monograph of the genus Antilope was pubhshed in 1816. 

 . Magazin der Geselkchaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin VI<« Jahrgang. 



