573 



itself in exostoses of the bones of tiie cranial roof, especially and 

 at last exclusively of the frontal bones. In his opinion the perio- 

 dicity of this surplus of growth-energy keeps time with the rut of 

 the males, but its presence should be ascribed to the regression of 

 another ditferential feature of the male sex. viz. the ensiform tusks, 

 as they still occur in Suidae, Tragulidae and the uidiorned mnskdeer. 



The sirongest expression of this opinion is given by Bölschk in 

 the words (p. 88) "The pedicle is no weapon." On p. 89 he continues: 

 "As we saw, the idea "weapon" cannot be applied without 

 reserve to the beam, although it may occasionally be used as such. 

 Far exceeding that application and evidently its real nature, this 

 beam is an oi-namental product, a souialical arabesk, abstract from 

 all usefulness, rhythmic in structure, with an inherent connection 

 with the erotic side of life. The pedicle, in principle a product of 

 the skull like the beam, cannot by any means be considered as a 

 weapon, at the same time however it does not want erotic connections." 



Against these views 1 think objections may be raised in two 

 respects. In the first place there is no plausible reason, why the 

 origin of horns and antlers should not be connected with single 

 combats between males belonging to the same species, in which 

 the more primitive mode of fighting with tusks (as still found among 

 hogs) was gradually replaced by knocking of the foreheads against 

 each other. 



The question, whether this new custom was the immediate or 

 the indirect cause of the exostotic hypertrophic process (Lamarckism 

 versus Darwinism) may be passed over in silence here as in all 

 similar cases. Nor do I want to deny that exuberant growth, in 

 cooperation with periodical sexual maturity, exerted an important 

 influence on their development, as it still does every time the 

 antlers are shed and renewed : we need only remember how pro- 

 foundly this renewal is disturbed by every injury to the male 

 sexual glands. 



In the same way, Böi,sche\s verdict: "The pedicle is no weapon", 

 seems to me to be liable (o serious doubt. Already in itself, the 

 comparison of the long pedicle in the Muntjac-deer with the shorter 

 ones of the remaining ('ei-vidae leads to the conception, that the 

 pedicle shoidd be considered as an organ in a state of regression. 

 To the same consideration leads a survey of the extinct Deer: in 

 the middle-mioceue Palaeomeryx-species no separation exists between 

 pedicle and beam, they only show a long bony outgrowth of their 

 frontal bones, slightly forked at its top. This excrescence therefore 

 might be considered as a pedicle of extraordinary length. In the 



