134 Mr. R. T. Pocock on some 



race, named C. thar jamrachi, which was then living in the 

 Society's Gardens. The death of the animal in July 1913 

 enabled me to make a detailed examination of these glands. 



The preor bit at g land (fig. 2, I) consists of a comparatively 

 deep, thick-walled, nearly spherical sack, the cavity of which 

 is absolutely packed with long hairs, growing nearly verti- 

 cally from its walls and protruding as a tuft from the small, 

 circular, non-valvular orifice. 



The pedal glands (fig. 2, K), alike on the front and hind 

 legs, open by a small circular orifice on the front of the 

 pastern at the summit of the interdigital cleft exactly as in 

 Ovis and Namorhedus, and, as in these genera, the orifice 

 leads into a well-defined cylindrical tube or duct. But, 

 whereas in Ovis and Ncemorhedus this duct gradually passes 

 into a comparatively small saccular portion of the gland 

 bent upon the duct at an acute angle, in Capricornis the 

 duct communicates abruptly with an immense saccular 

 gland which occupies the entire space, bounded laterally by 

 the bones of the feet and above and below by the anterior 

 and posterior integument of the pastern. Inferiorly the 

 sack reaches into the angle formed by the fold of integument 

 constituting the heel-tie, and above it extends almost up to 

 a point on a level with the upper edge of the false hoofs. 

 The cavity of the sack was sparsely hairy and filled with 

 brownish-yellow secretion. 



So closely are the walls of the glandular sack applied to 

 the integument of the pastern, that I am convinced the 

 explanation of my failure to detect the gland in the dried 

 skin of C. argyrochcetes, mentioned on p. 855 of my previous 

 paper, lies in the occurrence of a similar condition in that 

 species. Hence the idea I then provisionally entertained, 

 that possibly that species has no pedal glands, may be finally 

 dismissed. 



I am unable to find any justification for Lydekker's 

 opinion that the various forms of Capricornis should be 

 referred to two species, C. sumatraensis, comprising nine 

 subspecies ranging from Kashmir to Sumatra and an un- 

 known number from China, and C. argyrochcetes from 

 Kansu and Szechuan in China. The latter does not differ 

 so much from some of the subspecies of C. sumatraensis as 

 some of the latter differ from each other. In the present 

 state of our knowledge it appears to me that the only 

 courses open to us are to regard these forms as local races 

 of one species, the course I adopted, or as so many distinct 

 species — a course which I prefer to leave to him who has 



