184 MAMMALIA, 
C. equinus. 13. C. marianus. 14. C. Peroni. 18. C. uni- 
color. 16. C. Axis. 17. C. porcinus. 18. C. nudipalpebra. 
19. C. Leschenaultii. 20. C. Capreolus. 21. C. Mexicanus. 
22. C. paludosus. 23. C. campestris. c. Cerfs daguets. 24. 
C. Nemorivagus. 25. C. rufus. This essay is a mere compila- 
tion without any examination. 
M. Pucheran, in his “ Monographie des espéces du Genre 
Cerf” (Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci. 1849, u. 775), divides the 
tribe Cerviens into four genera:—1l. Alces. 2. Tarandus. 3. 
Cervulus; and 4. Cervus. 
Since the publication of Cuvier’s Essay on Deer (Ossemens 
Fossiles, iv.), where he exhibited the development of the horns 
of several species, and in which he described several species from 
the study of the horns alone, many zoologists have almost entirely 
depended on the horns for the character of the species; and Mr. 
Hamilton Smith has been induced to separate some species on 
the study of a single horn. But the facilities which menageries 
have afforded of studyimg these animals, and watching the va- 
riations which the horns of the species present, have shown that 
several most distinct but allied species, as the Stag of Canada 
and India, have horns so similar, that it is impossible to disti- 
guish them by their horns. On the other hand, it has shown 
that animals of the same herd, or even family, and sometimes 
even the same specimen, under different circumstances, in suc- 
ceeding years have produced horns so unlike one another in size 
and form, that they might have been considered, if their history 
was not known, as horns of very different species. These obser- 
vations, and the examination of the different cargoes of foreign 
horn which are imported for the uses of the cutler, each cargo 
of which is generally collected in a single locality, and therefore 
would most probably belong to a single species peculiar to the 
district, have proved to me that the horns afford a much better 
character to separate the species into groups than to distinguish 
1 
: 
so 
Se 
—_——s ee 
the allied species from one another. 
Colonel Hamilton Smith, in his Monograph of the Genus, se- 
parated them into genera according to the form of the horns. 
In the Proceedings of the Zoological Society for 1836 1 drew | 
attention to the glands on the hind-legs, as affording very good | 
character to arrange the genera proposed by Colonel Smith into | 
natural groups, which in most particulars agreed with the geo- 
graphical distribution of the species. 
Dr. Sundevall, in his Essay on Pecora, has availed himself of 
the characters suggested in my paper, and has also pointed out 
some other external characters, such as the form and extent of 
the muffle, which afford good characters for the distinction of 
these animals, characters which, I firmly believe, are much more 
