186 Mr. K. I. Pocock 07i the 



explained, was a generic name proposed by Gray in 1871 for 

 the long-tailed Chinese Goral described as Antilope caiidata 

 by A. Milne-Edwards. This species, however, is not usually 

 admitted to be generically distinct from the Himalayan form. 



Although it has been suggested to me that Kemas of 

 Ogilby should be regarded as a different name from Gemas of 

 Oken because of the optical and, to those who pronounce tlie 

 initial " C" as a sibilant, phonetic differences between " C" 

 and "^," I nevertheless agree with Gray, and, following 

 him, with Mr. Lydekker and M. Trouessart, that " C" and 

 "Z"" in this and analogous cases must be looked upon as 

 identical letters. 



But, whatever the ultimate verdict on this point may be, 

 Kemas caimot, in my opinion, be reserved for the Gorals, 

 because of Gray's decision to call these animals Ncemorhedus. 

 And this action on the part of Gray similarly disposes of the 

 claims of Urotragus to generic recognition so long as caudatus, 

 the type of Urotragus, is regarded, as I think it should be, 

 as congeneric with goral, the type of Ncemorhedus. 



In 1894 Heude" (Hist. Nat. Chinois, ii. pp. 222 & 234) 

 followed Ogilby's nomenclature, adopting Capricornis and 

 Kemas, which he characterized ; but in 1898 {pp. cit. iv. 

 pp. 13-14) he broke up Capricornis as follows : — 



1. Capricornis for thar, chrysochcetes, fargesianus, longi- 



cornis, hrachyrhinus, nasutus. 



2. Nemotragus, nov., for erythropggius, platyrhinus, cornu- 



tus, ungulosus, microdonticus, argyrochcetes. 



3. Lithotragus, nov., for maritimus, rocherianus, henetianus, 



marcolinus, herthelianus. 



4. Capricornulus, nov., for crispus, pryerianus, sa.vicola. 



5. Austritragus, nov., for sumatrensis. 



It is quite beyond my purpose, if it was within my power, 

 to deal with these so-called species * ; and the adoption by 



* Wi th the exception of thar, crispus, and sumatroms, the names enume- 

 rated above were applied by Heude to what he believed to be new species 

 inhabiting China and Japan. "With regard to the Chinese forms, I hnd it 

 impossible to believe that they should rank as " species " in the ordinarily 

 accepted sense of the word. Probably a subspecific value should be assigned 

 to some of them, possibly a higher value to a few^ Many of the features, 

 again, upon which the " species " rest may be attributable to ditlerences 

 of age or of sex or of season, or to individual variation irrespective of such 

 conditions. Tt is impossible to say, the provoldngly involved and verbose 

 nature of the text making the attempt to clear up the questions raised 

 one upon which few will attempt to embark without localized material. 

 Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the papers of Heude have a certain 

 value and interest, inasmucli as the observations they record substantiate 



