August 1, 1892.] 



KNOWLEDGE, 



153 



of the grinding or cheek-teeth of the rumiaauts, and have 

 shown how the last three in the upper jaw (Fig. 1) are 

 composed of four columns, of varying height, of which 

 the two inner ones are crescent-shaped. It was, 

 moreover, shown at the same tim3 how these sehnoihmt 

 (crescent-like) teeth could be traced back by grada- 

 tions to the simpler Inminhmt ( hillock -Uke) teeth 

 of the swine. The lower grinding-teeth having their 

 crescents directed the opposite way to those of the upper 

 jaw, and both upper and lower teeth consisting of layers 

 of different hardness, ve can scarcely imagine a better 

 masticating machine than is presented by the opposition 

 of the two series of grinding-teeth of these animals. 

 Bearing in mind this structure, the definition of cui- 

 chewing, selenodont mammals will sufKee to distinguish 

 the ruminants from all other animals. When, however, 

 we say that these characteristics distinguish them from 

 all other animals, it must be added that this refers 

 only to those of the present day. We have already 

 seen how the Mosaic law recognized the similarity 

 in the structure of the hoofs of the ruminants and the 

 swine, and it is curious that while iinder the Cuvierian 

 system of zoology these two groups were widely sundered, 

 modern pal»ontological researches have shown that they 

 are really closely related, the want of the power of chewmg 

 the cud, with the correlated absence of the selenodont 

 structure of the teeth, being the chief essential features in 

 which the latter differ from the former. 



Here a curious problem is presented to those who put 

 their faith in a mode of evolution dependent only upon so- 

 called natural causes, in that it is impossible to give any- 

 adequate explanation of what pos- 

 sible advantage would be the develop- 

 ment of an incipient selenodont 

 structure in the teeth of the early 

 swine-like ungulata, or at what 

 precise stage the fimction of chewing 

 the cud, with the concomitant 

 development of a separate compart- 

 ment in the stomach, was superadded 

 to the normal mode of feeding 

 characteristic of the swine. 



Here we must say a few words 

 as to the structure of the rumi- 

 nant foot. The "cloven hoof" of 

 ruminants and swme has become 

 such a proverbial expression that the 

 idea may still linger that this is due 

 to the fission of a single hoof, like 

 that of a horse. As we have en- 

 deavoured to show in our article on 

 "Rudimentary Structures," nothing 

 could, however, be further from 

 the truth ; the two hoofs of a 

 ruminant (Fig. 2) corresponding to 

 the terminal joints of our own 

 middle and ring fingers (or the 

 corresponding toes), which are the 

 third and fourth of the typical 

 series of five. The lateral or 

 spurious hoofs (not shown in Fig. 2) 

 of the ruminants represent our own 

 index (2nd) and little (5th) fingers, 

 or toes. It is a further peculiarity 

 of the true ruminants and camels 

 that the two separate bones which 

 in the swine connect the two large 

 digits with the wrist or ankle are 

 fused into a single cannon-bone 



Fig. 2. — Bones of the 

 hind foot of a Rumin- 

 ant. The letters in- 

 dicate the lower bones 

 of the ankle. (Aft«r 

 Osboru.) 



(Fig. 2) ; the primary dual origin of which is indicated by 

 the two distinct pulley-like surfaces at the lower end, 

 which carry the bones of the digits. The peculiar little 

 ruminants known asthechevrotains — of which more anon — 

 retain, however, evidences of their kinship with the swine, 

 in that some of them have the two elements of the front 

 cannon-bone — or metacarpals as they are then called — quite 

 separate from one another. Indeed, as indicated in the 

 article last cited, in the same manner as we may trace a 

 transition from the selenodont teeth of the ruminants to 

 the bunodont ones of the swine, we maj- mark how the 

 two-toed and cannon-boned ruminants passed into swLne- 

 like animals, with four toes supported by as many separate 

 metacarpal bones. 



Having now mentioned the leading characters of a 

 modern ruminant, as distinct from other mammals, we maj' 

 refer to a peculiarity, which, although by no means 

 characteristic of all, is a striking one, and one sharply 

 differentiating the group from all others. This is the 

 tendency to the development of appendages on the skull, 

 arranged in a pair at right angles to its longer axis, and 

 taking the form either of solid branching antlers, as in the 

 deer, or of hollow sheaths of horn covering bony cores on 

 the skull, as in the oxen and antelopes. The distinction 

 between antlers and horns, having been described in an 

 earlier article, need not further engage our attention. 



Passing to the consideration of the various kinds of cud- 

 chewing mammals, we find that the true ruminants, or 

 those with hoofs, no upper front teeth, and a cannon-bone 

 in both limbs, arrange themselves in several minor groups. 

 The most important to man are the " hollow-horned 

 ruminants." such as oxen, sheep, goats, and antelopes, all 

 of which are characterized by the presence of horns, at 

 least in the males. The variety of form assumed by the 

 horns render this group one of the most attractive of all 

 animals ; and we have but to recall the curved and smooth 

 horns of the oxen, the equally massive but wrinkled ones 

 of the wild sheep, those ot the ibex with their knotted 

 points and scimitar-like backward sweep, the spear-like 

 form of those of the gemsbok, and the spiral twist of those 

 of the kudu and eland, to realize the variety of contour 

 assumed by these appendages. 



The oxen (including bison and buffaloes) are, with the 

 exception of the American bison. Old World types, and 

 were formerly abundant in Europe, where, however, they 

 are now only represented by the bison preserved in the 

 forests of Lithuania and the Caucasus, and by the half 

 wild cattle (Fig. 3) of Chillingham and some other British 

 parks, which have been thought to be the direct de- 

 scendants of the British wild ox, or aurochs, of C»sar's time, 

 but are more probably derived from ancient domesticated 

 breeds which have reverted to a nearly wild state. True 

 wild oxen now exist only in India and the adjacent 

 regions, while wild buffalo occur both in India and 

 Africa. 



Equally characteristic of the Old World are wild sheep 

 and goats, the " big-horn " being an outlying Nortla 

 American type. Both groups are essentially mountain 

 animals, the head-quarters of the former being the high- 

 lands of Central .\sia, while on the southern flanks of the 

 same mountain- barrier the latter are more abundant. 

 Both are also represented in the moimtains of Europe ; but 

 in peninsular India there is but the wild goat of the 

 Xilgerries, while in the whole of Africa we have only the 

 vnlA. sheep of Barbary and the ibex of Abyssinia. This 

 absence of sheep and goats from Africa may, perhaps, be 

 due to the fact that these animals are of comparatively late 

 origin, and were probably poorly represented at the time 

 when the other ruminants entered that continent from the 



