662 U. S. P. R. R. EXP. AND SURVEYS ZOOLOGY GENERAL REPORT. 



shades into the color of the back ; beneath, it is entirely white, although very little of this is 

 seen when viewed from above. 



The mottled hairs, examined individually, are nearly black, with a subterminal annulus of 

 bright yellowish chestnut, very distinctly defined ; the basal portion is cinereous. The black 

 colors predominate on the back, the cinereous on the sides. The annuli are about T V of an inch 

 long on the back, where they are narrowest, and widen to about a quarter of an inch on the 

 sides and on the shoulders. 



I have not had an opportunity of examining any but winter skins of this animal ; the summer 

 coat is much lighter, according to Dr. Newberry, being of a nearly uniform fulvous brown, and 

 the colors generally less distinct. According to Dr. Gray, of the British Museum, the summer 

 hairs are not ringed at all. 



There is great uniformity in all the skins as to color, the only difference being in a specimen 

 from Monterey, in which the subterminal annulus on the hairs is much lighter. Specimens 

 from San Diego are considerably smaller than those further north, following the same rule with 

 the Virginia deer. 



The C. columbianus is readily distinguishable from the other American species. Its horns 

 and color are entirely distinct from C. virginianus. Its affinities are closer to C. macrotis, 

 having much the same horns; it is smaller, however; its general color is darker ; it has a dusky 

 border to the forehead, and is without the white patch on the rump. The hair is finer. The 

 gland on the leg is shorter. My comparisons of the hoofs with those of Dr. Newberry's speci 

 men of C. macrotis lead me to different conclusions from Mr. Peale, as I find them to be shorter, 

 broader, and higher, and thus more cordate beneath, in C. colurribianus than in C. macrotis. 



This species was first brought to the attention of naturalists by Lewis and Clark, who called it 

 the black-tailed fallow deer of the Pacific, fully appreciating its differences from the mule deer 

 of the Missouri. For many years, however, it was without a scientific name, owing to the 

 general impression that it was the same with the Cervus macrotis of Say. Dr. Richardson 

 unwittingly described specimens in the museum of the Zoological Society as the C. macrotis, 

 his description agreeing very accurately with the subject of the present article. He figures a 

 fine specimen of rather unusual development of horns, and the plate and description of Audubon 

 and Bachman are likewise taken from the same animal. 



In 1848, Mr. Peale described this species as C. leivisii, having been the first naturalist who 

 fully understood the relations between it and C. macrotis. For this he was well fitted, having 

 been with Mr. Say when, in 1817, the Cervus macrotis was discovered near the Rocky Moun 

 tains. Audubon and Bachman subsequently described it as C. richardsonii. 



Richardson, however, in 1829, gives a notice of Lewis and Clark's black-tailed deer, under 

 the name of Cervus macrotis, var. columbianus, referring to the article of the above authors. 

 This it would seem proper to retain as being really a scientific name for the black-tailed deer, 

 even though not supposed to be entitled to full rank, but only as a variety of (7. macrotis. 

 Where an author considers an animal as a variety of some other, and gives to it a suitable 

 systematic name, as such, it would seem but right and proper, if a species is to be established, 

 to take the name already prescribed, rather than to increase the list of synonyms by a new 

 one. The same principle will apply equally well when a sub-genus is to be raised to the rank 

 of a genus. 



