2 J\Ir, E. Johnson on a new Species 



small village on the Norfolk coast between Cromer and Yar- 

 mouth, after a very low title, during the month of March 

 last. j\Ir. Gunn informs mc that it is the upper portion of the 

 Forest-Led which is exposed at the above-mentioned place, 

 and consequently we may consider it of later date than that 

 portion found near Cromer. 



The species in question belongs to the large subgenus 

 of ])almated deer of which Cerviis megaceros^ the so-called 

 Irish Elk, is a well-known example ; and as it is charac- 

 terized by the great breadth of the frontal bone, I propose 

 to name it Cervus latifrons. In addition to this, the chief 

 characteristics which this remarkable form presents are 

 as follows : — the extreme shortness of the pedicle, if a 

 pedicle can really be said to exist at all ; the absence of a 

 brow-antler, the beam of the antler being given off from the 

 frontal bone nearly at right angles, with a slight curvature 

 dowiiAvards, while at about the distance of twelve inches from 

 the burr palmation commences and a huge tine is given off 

 from the anterior surface of the beam, which curves roimd so 

 as to form almost a semicircle. This tine, when compared 

 with the size of the beam, will be found to be very largely 

 developed. 



If we compare this antler, possessing the above-named cha- 

 racteristics, with that of Cervus megaceros, to which the species 

 in many respects is nearly allied (notably in its palmation and 

 size), w^e shall find that there are considerable differences. 

 Cer-ms megaceros always possesses a brow-antler, although 

 sometimes but faintly indicated ; in the new species we have 

 seen that it is entirely absent. Again, in Cervus megaceros 

 there is a great curvature of the beam outwards and in a certain 

 degree upwards, whereas in Cervus latifrons the beam is ex- 

 tremely straight and with only the slightest trace of a down- 

 ward curvature. Besides the differences wdiich exist between 

 the antlers of the two species, one would naturally expect to 

 find differences in other portions of the skeleton ; and that 

 there are such is shown by the only portion I possess, viz. 

 the left frontal bone before mentioned. In Cervus megaceros^ 

 if we look at the anterior part of the frontal bone we 

 immediately notice that it is very narrow and rather con- 

 vex, while in Cervus latifrons it is very broad and nearly 

 flat. 



The annexed drawing (PI. I.), one fourth the natural size, 

 will give an approximate idea of the specimen, the measure- 

 ments of which I give together with those of another larger 

 (but more im]ierfect) specimen of the same species, which is 

 preserved in the Norwich Museum. 



