1875.] PROF. W. H. FLOWER ON THE MUSK-DEER. 179 
Any system of classification which ignores these facts cannot pre- 
tend to be founded upon the teaching of nature. 
There has seareely been a more troublesome and obdurate error in 
zoology than that which, based on the observation of certain com- 
paratively unimportant external characters, placed the Tragulina 
and Moschus in one and the same genus*. It has been troublesome 
not only as preventing a just conception of the relations of existing 
Artiodactyles, but also in causing great confusion and hindrance in 
paleontological researches among the allied forms; and most obdu- 
rate, inasmuch as all that has been recently done in advancing our 
knowledge of both groups has not succeeded in eradicating it, not 
only from nearly every one of our zoological text-books, either 
British or continental, but even from works of the highest scientific 
pretensions. 
In the admirable memoir of Adolphe Milne-Udwards already 
referred to, which contains so much solid information about the 
Musk-Deer and the Tragulina, and in which the distinctions between 
them are so clearly pointed out, the influence of the old traditions 
prevailed; and in his final revision of the order of Ruminants 
(p. 118) the Tragulide constitute only one of the families of the 
suborder Unguligrada, the Moschide, Cervide, Antilopide, Capride, 
Bovide, and Girafide (so far more closely allied to one another) 
being the others, while the Camels are separated as a distinct 
suborder, Phalangigrada. 
In a later work, however, published by the same eminent zoologist 
in conjunction with his illustrious father (‘ Recherches pour servir 
a histoire naturelle des Mammiféres,’ 1868), in the preliminary 
sketch of the classification of the Mammals, a complete reformation 
is made, Moschus being included among -the Pecora or ordinary 
Ruminants, while the ‘‘ Chevrotains proprement dits’’ constitute an 
order apart, called “ Tragulides,” placed between the former and 
the “ Pachydermes bisulques.” 
Whether or not we give the term “order’’ to these groups+ 
matters less than that we recognize their natural character, and feel 
satisfied that the wide separation thus made between animals formerly 
thought to be so closely allied is justified by our increased knowledge 
of their structure. I will therefore endeavour, more fully than has 
hitherto been done, to give the reasons upon which this view is based, 
which will be the first step necessary for defining the position of 
Moschus. 
* Moschus and Tragulus, previously used as synonyms, were first separated 
by Dr. J. E. Gray, in 1836 (P. Z.S. vol. iv. p. 63), as sections or subgenera of 
the genus Moschus; but the importance of their distinguishing characters was 
not recognized, as Memminna was made another section of equal rank, Pucheran 
first proposed to place Tragulus in a family apart from Moschus, chiefly on 
account of the different structure of the stomach (‘“‘ Monographie des espéces du 
genre Cerf,” Compt. Rend. de l'Acad. des Sciences, 1849, t. xxix. p. 773, and 
Archives du Muséum, 1852, t. vi. p. 285). 
+ I think myself that this application of the term is hardly consistent with 
its general use among the other Mammalia, and that “suborder” would be 
preferable. 
]o% 
