On Cervus chilensis a«c?Cervus antisiensis. 213 



numerous cases in which the author has reduced the American 

 shells to "varieties " of the European species, because in many 

 of these cases there must long be great diversity of opinion, 

 and for most purposes it matters little whether these closely 

 related forms be called "varieties" or "species," so long as 

 the actual differences are recognized. But since Mr. Jeffreys 

 lias evidently made so many important mistakes in his article 

 in regard to the identity of species, and has united those that 

 have no near affinities, as already shown, it is logical to con- 

 clude that he may have made other mistakes in the case of 

 more critical species. He must therefore pardon us if we 

 regard his decisions in all these cases as at least doubtful, until 

 confirmed by other evidence. 



XXIV. — Remarks on Cervus chilensis and Cervus antisiensis. 

 By P. L. ScLATER, M.A., F.R.S., Secretary to the Zoological 

 Society of London. 



I BEG leave to offer to the readers of the 'Annals' a few remarks 

 upon the paper " On the Gu(^mul {Huamela leucotisY^ by Dr. 

 Gray, which appeared in the number for December last (Ann. 

 Nat. Hist. ser. 4, vol. x. p. 445). The acquisition of the male 

 sex of the deer proposed by Dr. Gray to be called Huamela 

 leucotis is of much interest. But Dr. Gray seems to have 

 overlooked the fact that this deer had been named Cervus chi- 

 lensis by Gay and Gervais in 1846 (Ann. des Sci. Nat. ser. 3, 

 vol. V. p. 91), three years before he published a description of it 

 as Cervus leucotis (P. Z. S. 1849, p. 64). Under these circum- 

 stances Cervus chilensis is the oldest name for this animal, 

 under which name it has also been figured and described in 

 Gay's 'Historia de Chile.' It may be objected that the name 

 chilensis is inappropriate, as the animal is more particidarly 

 Patagonian than Chilian. But Dr. Philippi, as will be seen 

 by reference to his remarks (Wiegm. Arch. 1870, pt. i. p. 46), 

 says that the Guemul, or Cervus chilensis, though now rare, 

 ts found in Chili, and gives notices of several places called 

 after its name, from its having formerly occurred there. 



As regards the allied species of deer of which Mr. Whitely 

 has sent specimens from Tinta in Peru, and which Dr. Gray 

 has called Anomalocera huamel, Xenelaphus huamel, and Xene- 

 laphus leucotis, and now proposes to call Xenelaphus anoma- 

 locera, I may state that I have examined the specimens now 

 in the British Museum, and have convinced myself that they 

 are referable to Cervus antisiensis of D'Orbio:nv. Tschudi 



