14 PATAGONIAN EXPEDITIONS: ZOOLOGY. 



170; main tine of antler from burr, 260; short tine from burr, 165; main 

 tine from fork, 180; short tine from fork, 95. 



Male skull, adult but not old : Total length, 295 ; basal length, 260 ; 

 zygomatic breadth, 107; greatest orbital width, 115; greatest occipital 

 breadth, 88 ; distance between base of antlers at the skull surface, 52 ; 

 length of nasals, 100; greatest breadth of nasals, 30; palatal length, 174; 

 anterior palatal foramina (each), 37 x 10 ; width of palate at «^^ 41 ; length 

 of upper tooth row, 86 ; length of lower jaw, inner base of incisors to pos- 

 terior border of condyle, 217 ; height at condyle, 96 ; lower premolar-molar 

 series, 89; diastema, 67; Antlers: length of main tine from burr, 225; 

 length of anterior tine from burr, 178 ; length of main tine from fork, 166; 

 of anterior from fork, 113; length of bony pedical, 17. 



Represented by 5 specimens, 4 males and i female, collected at the 

 eastern base of the Cordilleras at the head of the Rio Chico de Santa 

 Cruz, February 10-18 and March i, 1897, by Messrs. Peterson and Hatcher. 



The Patagonian Guamul differs from the Peruvian Guamul {Hippoca- 

 tnelus antisiensis) in smaller size, stouter antlers, with the anterior tine 

 relatively smaller, and the point of bifurcation a little further up from the 

 burr, and the facial black markings less extended posteriorly. In general 

 coloration, and doubtless in habits, the two species have a close general 

 resemblance. 



The Patagonian animal has been repeatedly described and figured, a 

 recent excellent colored figure of it having been published by Lydekker 

 (Proc. Z06I. Soc. London, 1899, pi. Ixi), together with a good text cut 

 of the head (/. c, p. 918). Prichard (/. c.) has also recently given a good 

 figure of the animal in summer coat. 



The group of Guamul deer presents a case of unusually complicated 

 synonymy, which, however, has been carefully sifted and straightened out, 

 first by Sclater and later by Matschie, Lydekker, and Berg, by whose 

 labors I have greatly profited in the present connection. On the rather 

 unsatisfactory principle of exclusion, and the vernacular name used by 

 Molina, the three last named authors have seen proper to employ Molina's 

 specific designation bisidciis for the present species, the adoption of which 

 seems unfortunately necessary under the rule of priority, there being of 

 course no reasonable doubt as to what animal Molina so vaguely indicated 

 under this name. 



As shown by the following field notes, contributed by Mr. Brown, and 



