824. Dr. J. E. Gray on the Pronghern Buck, 
note under 24th August 1841, observes, ‘ Dr. Marsh assures me 
that the horns of this animal are shed annually, like those of 
the deer.’ ” ; 
Dr. Colbert A. Canfield, who resides in California, sent an 
account of the habits of the Prongbuck, in which he states as a 
fact that “the horns drop off annually,” to Dr. Spencer Baird, 
of the Smithsonian Institution; but his paper (which is dated 
Sept. 10, 1858) was not published until after Mr. Bartlett had 
recorded his observation of the same fact, observed on the ani- 
mal in the Zoological Society’s Gardens. 
Dr. Colbert Canfield’s paper is printed im the ‘ Proceedings 
of the Zoological Society,’ 1866, p. 105, and contains many 
very interesting particulars on the habits and manners of the 
animal. 
Dr. Canfield truly observes that the horns of sheep and goats 
always have rings showing the growth of the horns, and that 
such rings are not to be observed on the horns of the Prong- 
buck. 
When Dr. Canfield says that “the horns drop off annually,” 
and observes to Dr. Spencer Baird, “To convince you of 
this singular fact is my principal object in making you this 
communication,” he only intended to say that the horny sheath 
of the horns fell. The American hunters and Dr. Marsh must 
have intended the same, though Dr. Bachman and M. Audubon 
were deceived by the vagueness of the hunters’ words ; and even 
Dr. Marsh, when he added “like the deer,” could only have in- 
tended to say that the case of the horns falls annually, and not 
that the entire horn or antler falls, as is the case with the deer. 
Mr. Bartlett, in the ‘Proceedings of the Zoological Society ’ 
for 1865, p. 718, gave a very interesting and detailed account 
of the manner in which the horny case of the horn separates 
from the core, and how the new horny case is formed between 
the inner surface of the old case and the core. 
Mr. Bartlett in this paper endeavours “to prove that the Prong- 
buck’s affinities are closer to the genus Cervus,” to which he 
thinks ‘it is more nearly allied than to the Antelopes.” Indeed 
he thinks he is “ able to show that the horns of the Prongbuck 
are a modification of the horns of Cervus.” 
In this view I think that Mr. Bartlett is entirely mistaken, 
and that this theory obscures the otherwise very interesting de- 
tails which he gives of the peculiarities of this animal. 
2. In the hollow-horned Ruminants the bony processes of the 
frontal bone, which form the true horns of this group of animals, 
are permanent, and are covered, in the oxen, sheep, goat, and 
antelopes, with a horny case, which is increased in size as the 
core enlarges by the addition of new lamime of horny matter to 
