to Ihr fi} 
<-/<- 
NATURE 
[ JANUARY 17, 1907 
the roebuck are the only survivors in a wild, or half- 
wild, condition; and the cetaceans. 
In regard to the hare, the author discusses, without 
coming to any very definite conclusion, the popular 
idea that this animal sleeps with its eyes open. With- 
out having any first-hand information to offer on the 
question, we venture to suggest that the idea has no 
foundation in fact, as it must be obvious that when 
an animal is unconscious it can make no use of its 
eyes, whether open or shut. Many persons, it 
appears, doubt whether the rabbit can swim; but on 
this point Mr. Millais has ample testimony, and he 
describes in detail the manner in which this rodent 
makes its way in the water on the rare occasions 
that it takes to that element. 
“ British 
, 
In Deer and their Horns ’ 
Fic. 2.—Head of an English Red Deer killed in 1905. Points, 15. 
Generally considered to be the finest example taken within recent 
years. From ‘‘ The Mamunals of Great brisain and Ireland.” 
has already shown that he is well acquainted with the 
habits of the three surviving British representatives 
of the Cervide, and on this subject his observations 
in the volume before us are well worthy the best 
attention of the reader. Of special interest is the 
statement that the new antlers of deer begin to grow 
before the old ones are shed, this, so far as we are 
aware, not having been previously recorded. 
In the course of his account of the red deer Mr. 
Millais devotes a considerable amount of space to the 
contention that the division of this widely distributed 
species into local races is not supported by the 
evidence available. ‘‘ All the needless names on the 
part of scientific zoologists, who in most instances 
NO. 1942, VOL. 75 | 
have worked» on insufficient evidence, have,’’ he 
writes, ‘‘ only resulted in endless chaos, to the some- 
what supercilious amusement of sportsmen, who in 
this case have shown that they know more about the 
red deer than the zoologists.”’ 
To the allegations in this statement we have no 
hesitation in giving a flat denial, and it is nothing 
short of presumption on the part of an amateur 
naturalist like Mr. Millais to set up his opinion 
against those of specialists of the calibre of Prof. 
Einar Lonnberg, of Upsala, and Dr. Satunin, of 
Tiflis. 
The plain fact of the matter (and there are 
occasions when it is necessary to write strongly) is 
that our author does not realise what naturalists 
Mr. Millais | mean by local races or subspecies, as may be gathered 
from his remarks concerning the intergradation 
of different local forms of red deer. Is he 
aware, we may remark, that the essential idea 
of a subspecies is that it should intergrade with 
the typical or some other form of the species, 
and that many naturalists claim that when 
such connecting links have died out the aberrant 
form must rank as a species? Lack of know-. 
ledge characterises also his remarks concerning 
minor local differences in animals. The fact 
that Perthshire grouse are distinguishable by an 
expert from the birds found in Caithness, and 
Tay salmon from Tweed salmon, is, for 
instance, no argument against the validity of 
subspecies. On the contrary, it tends exactly 
the other way, merely giving rise to the ques- 
tion as to the degree in which it is advisable, 
or practicable, to recognise such local differ- 
ences in zoological nomenclature. 
That the large, black-bellied eastern red deer, 
or maral, and the small North African red 
deer are perfectly distinct from the typical red 
deer of Sweden does not admit of argument. 
Dr. Lonnberg, in a paper (Arkiv Zool., vol. 
iii., No. 9, 1906) which may have appeared too 
late for mention by Mr. Millais, goes further 
than this, and separates the Norwegian red deer as 
Cervus elaphus atlanticus and the Scotch animal as 
C. e. scoticus; but these local forms, as might be 
expected, are much nearer one another than are those 
mentioned above. 
In treating of the white park-cattle, Mr. Millais, 
we are glad to see, recognises the fact that they are 
essentially descendants of albino domesticated breeds, 
and in no sense wild animals. He believes, however, 
that they are derived from Continental rather than 
British breeds. In this respect he runs counter to 
the opinion of Low, who knew more about these 
cattle than many later writers; and it would seem 
that he is unacquainted with the white Pembroke 
breed, of which specimens are now living in the 
Duke of Bedford’s park at Woburn. Anyone who 
has seen these animals will have little doubt as to 
where to look for the ancestry of all breeds of park- 
cattle. 
In regard to relics of the old wild ox or aurochs, 
Mr. Millais states, on the alleged authority of the 
present writer, that two horns, formerly used as 
drinking cups, are preserved in Paris. If he will 
refer to ‘‘ Mostly Mammals ’”’ he will find it stated 
that, up to the French Revolution, both these horns 
were preserved in Alsace, and that only one, which 
probably did not belong to the aurochs at all, was 
mounted as a drinking cup. Both have now dis- 
appeared, so far as can be ascertained. Since Mr. 
Millais is sceptical as to the view now generally 
accepted with regard to the colour of the aurochs, or 
urus, it may be well to quote the observations on 
