138 ^Ir. \\. I. Pocock on some 



transverse ridge of integument just where the hair of the 

 pastern ceases in the interungual space. There is no 

 trace of definite pedal gland, although the hair at the 

 b •ttom of the interdigital depression in front is stuck 

 together with secretion, indicating activity of the skin at 

 that spot. Tiie hind foot is like tlic front foot. 



There is no trace o{ preurhital (jland or of inguinal glands 

 in the ordinary sense of that terra ; but the two mammae 

 (fig. 3, C, m.) on each side, set as far out from the middle 

 Hue as the outer edge of the scrotum, are close together, 

 one in front of the other, in the centre of a distinct swelling 

 like a small udder. When the skin is cut away, this 

 swelling is seen to be caused by a blackish glandular mass 

 like a small bunch of grapes, and blackish secretion could be 

 squeezed through a single pore on the posterior teat with 

 the use of considerable pressure. This unusual condition of 

 the mammary gland in the male is worth putting on record, 

 althouiih, pending the examination of other specimens of 

 J3udorcas, it must be regarded, I think, as pathological in 

 one individual. 



The j^enis (fig, 3, 0, p.) is provided with a pendulous 

 prepuce, three inches long, rising from the abdomen six inches 

 in front of the scrotum. Just within the orifice of the pre- 

 puce the skin is highly glandular and overgrown with long 

 hairs, which protrude from the aperture to form a tuft 

 three or four inches long. The gians penis (fig. 2, H) is 

 apically attenuated and provided with a straight, moderately 

 stout, urethral prolongation projecting some little way beyond 

 the tip of the glans. Except for the greater elongation of 

 the free portion of the urethral canal, the glans penis is very 

 like that of Ncemorhedus. 



One of the chief interests connected with Budorcas is 

 involved in the claim that the genus is related to Ovibos, 

 whose uncertain position in the Bovida3 was expressed by 

 Loiiuberg's ascription of it to a special subfamily Ovibovinae 

 (Proc. Zool. 8oc. 1900, pp. 142-167). Judging from the 

 characters dealt with in this paper it docs not appear to me 

 that the claim of close relationship between the two forms 

 can be maintained, and I am disposed to regard the resem- 

 blances between them in horn-growth, robustness of build, 

 etc., as independently acquired. The differences between 

 them may be tabulated as follows. For most of the 

 characters relating to Ovibos I am indebted to Lonnberg's 

 paper : — 



