cd 
1865.] MR. A. D. BARTLETT ON THE AMERICAN PRONGBUCK. 72] 
I will again quote Messrs, Audubon and Bachman. In their volume 
previously referred to they remark (p. 204) :— 
“As to the shedding of the horns of this species, I never was able 
to ascertain it; but a fine buck we killed late in November had a soft 
space between the head and the horn, over the bone, that looked as 
if it had grown that length in one season,” 
As a proof that the shedding of these horns was not the result of 
any disease or accident, I may remark that whenever the hollow horn 
of any Ruminant is broken or torn from its bony support, a copious 
discharge of blood immediately follows; and the horn so removed 
is never replaced by any subsequent growth. This remark applies 
equally to any injury done to the outer or velvety covering during 
the progress of growth of the solid horns of the genus Cervus: innu- 
merable instances can be found; I will mention the following, which 
may be deemed sufficient to illustrate the truth of this statement. 
A young male Nylghau (Portax picta) accidentally struck off the 
horny covering when these parts had become nearly full-grown, 
leaving the bony cores bare and bleeding ; the bleeding continued a 
short time, and the bony stumps when dry became nearly black ; the 
animal continued in good health, and bred with the females, and 
lived several years without the shghtest sign of horny covering 
making its appearance. 
I will not trouble you with further remarks upon this point, feel- 
ing it unnecessary, but proceed to direct your attention to the various 
forms and the differences in size to be found among the horns of the 
Prongbuck. I have selected a few illustrations from Prof. Baird’s 
Report before alluded to, and these have been drawn and enlarged to 
life-size by my friend Mr. Jennens from a plate in that report. My 
friend, Mr. Moore, the Curator of the Derby Museum of Liverpool, 
has also kindly sent for my use the fine head and original horns 
that have been described by Dr. Gray, and figured in this Society’s 
‘Proceedings’ under the name Antilocapra antefleca: to these I 
shall again allude. 
Now this variation in form is more in accordance with my notions 
of Cervus than of the Antelope-type, in which no great diversity of 
form is found in the same species, while in the Deer-tribe the most 
remarkable variation is to be found in almost every species. 
The Cervine characters consist, however, not only in a mere resem- 
blance on account of diversity of form in the horns, but in the fact 
of their being deciduous, together with the hairy covering. But, in 
speaking of the affinities of this animal, I am struck by the peculiar 
resemblance it has to the Giraffe, not only in the structure of its 
horns, but in its legs and feet, the total absence of false hoofs, glands, 
&e. Nor can I avoid noticing the resemblance it bears to some of 
the Wild Sheep both in colour and general appearance, and in the 
thickness and structure of its coat. Here, again, its likeness to the 
Deer-tribe is most strongly marked—-the white patch on the rump*, 
the brittle hair, the fine legs, the elastic gait, the full, dark eye, and 
* A gland of considerable size exists in the back of this animal, immediately 
over the white patch. 
Proc. Zoo. Soc.—1865, No. XLVI. 
