184 Mr. R. I. Pocock on the 



qoral and thar are generically distinct. For the former he 

 introduced the genus Kemas, for tlie latter Capricorms, 

 entirely setting Ncemorhedus aside. Now Kemas, or, rather, 

 Cemas, had been previously used by Oken (Lehrb. Zool. ii. 

 p. 727, 1816) for a series of antelopes of which goral was not 

 one. Hence, if it be maintained that Kemas and Cemas are, 

 strictly speaking, the same names, goral cannot be the type 

 of Kemas. If, on the other hand, the difference in the forma- 

 tion of the initial letters " K'' and " C" be regarded as a 

 sufficient reason for considering the names different, goral 

 might be the type of Kemas, and some other antelope, say 

 gnu, according to Messrs. Sclater and Thomas's selection 

 (' Book of Antelopes,' i. pt. ii. p. 93, 1895), the type of 

 Cemas *. Since Ogilby quotes no authorities for any of the 

 genera cited in his paper, it is impossible to say whether he 

 was aware of Oken's use and spelling of the name or not. 

 Ogilby, indeed, left the matter in a most perplexing and 

 unsatisfactory state, on account of his disregard of the claims 

 of Noimorhedus, which, by the law of priority, must supersede 

 either Kemas or Capricornis. This appears to me to be 

 clearly a case where the decision of the next reviser, if 

 lawfully made, should be adhered to. This was Gray. 

 When he published his 'List of Mammals in the British 

 Museum ' in 1843 f, the generic nomenclature of the group 

 stood as follows : — 



JScemorhedus, containing sumairensisy duvaucelii, goral. 

 Kemas, „ goral. 



Capricorms, „ thar { = bnbaUna). 



Now Gray followed Ogilby in admitting the two genera 

 defined by that author as Kemas and Capricornis. He 

 reserved Capricornis for thar ( = bubalina) and adopted 

 Ncemorhedus for goral and sumatrensis. His association of 

 these two species was apparently due to his being acquainted 

 only with the horns of sumatrensis. This mistake, however, 

 in nowise affects the fact that he dropped Kemas, Ogilby, as 

 a synonym of Ncemorhedus and did not drop Capricornis. 

 His reason for this was quite obvious and natural and wise, 

 namely, that Kemas was, in his opinion, preoccupied as 

 Cemas, Oken (see p. xxvi of the introduction to the List 



* This selection can, I imagine, only hold good if the type of Cemas 

 had not been previously fixed by elimination. 



t In 1841 (Joum. As. Soc. Bengal, p. 913) Hodgson referred jroraZ and 

 thar to " Ncemorhedus vel Kemas.'" But since he thus merely reverts to 

 his original view as to the two species being congeneric, his paper does 

 n' t affect the question at issue. 



