External Characters of Ruminant A rtiodactyla. 113 
however, has a collar on the neck suspiciously suggestive of 
domestication. It may be noticed, too, that the elevated 
earriage of the head recalls that of the Gujrat: zebu shown on 
pl. xvii. Lydekker also remarks, in connection with this 
supposed aurochs, that it is “quite unlike the figure of tie 
ancient Assyrian humped ox” reproduced on p. 140 of his 
book. Of these he wrote :—* In the contour of the neck and 
shoulders, as well as in the direction of the horus, the repre- 
sentations of these humped cattle differ widely from those 
apparently representing the aurochs (p. 64). ‘hat these 
long-horued cattle did not come from Heypt is demonstrated 
by the presence of the well-developed hump, but the horus 
are of the Keyptian type.” 
I cannot in any way reconcile these statements with the 
facts. he figure shows a pair of heavily built, short-bodied, 
long-legged oxen, with high carriage of the head. The animal 
in the foreground is polled, and has avery poorly, not a well- 
developed hump. [t might pass for a polled zebu with an 
Incipient hamp, although the dewlap is absent, instead of 
being well grown as it is in that breed. The animal in the 
background, mostly hidden by its companion, has stout horns 
of medium length, which, instead of resembling, as alleged, 
those of the igyptian cattle in their upward trend, are turned 
horizontally forwards in a line with the back, the point only 
being hooked upwards, almost exactly as in the figure of the 
Augsburg aurochs (pl. iii.). These horns appear io me to 
differ in no important respect from those of the supposed 
Assyrian aurochs, except that they are a little longer. ‘The 
hump is not shown in the illustration ; hence, if present, it 
was not larger than that of the ox in the foreground, 
Granting the presence of asmall hump, it may be maintained 
that in that particular only does the horned bull of the pair 
in question, believed to be a zebu, differ from the above-quoted 
Nineveli bull, believed to be an aurochs. 
If Lydekker’s identification of these two Assyrian bulls be 
correct, it seems to me that the conclusion derived therefrom 
is precisely the opposite of that which he maintains, in the 
sense that the case supplies very strong evidence of the 
aurochs descent of the zebu. But apart from allowing that 
these Assyrian sculptures furnish interesting evidence of the 
existence of domesticated catile approaching the zebu-type in 
many particulars in Mesopotamia at an early historic period, 
I do not think very great reliance should be placed upon 
structural details in mouldings apparently largely conven- 
tional. My purpose in referring to these and other cases 
Ann. & Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 9. Vol. ii. 8 
