1878.] CLASSIFICATION OF THE CERV1DJS. 889 



ters, a task which can only become possible when our knowledge of 

 the extinct forms of Deer shall be very much more complete than it 

 is at present. Accepting the facts as we find them, the existing Cer- 

 vidae may be divided into three primary sections. 



A. Proximal ends of the lateral metacarpals remaining. 



(Plesiometacarpi.) 

 Posterior portion of the nasal cavity not divided by the vomer 



into two distinct chambers. 

 Tuft of hair on the external surface of the metatarsus, when pre- 

 sent, above the centre of that bone. Tuft of hair on the 

 inside of the tarsus always absent. 

 Ascending rami of the praemaxillae articulating generally with the 

 nasals. 

 Genera: — Cervulus, Elaphodus, Cervus (subgen. Rusa, Rueer- 

 vus, Elaphurus, Axis, Pseudaxis, Dama). 



B. Distal ends of the metacarpals remaining. (Telemetacarpi.) 

 Posterior portion of the nasal cavity not divided by the vomer 



into two distinct chambers. 

 Tuft of hair on the external surface of the metatarsus, when pre- 

 sent, above the centre of that bone. 

 Genera : — Alces, Hydropotes, Capreolus. 



C. Distal ends of the metacarpals remaining. (Telemetacarpi). 

 Posterior portion of the nasal cavity divided by the vomer into 



two distinct chambers. 

 Tuft of hair on the external surface of the metatarsus when pre- 

 sent, below the centre of that bone. Tuft on the iuside of 

 the tarsus frequently present. 

 Ascending rami of the praemaxillae generally not reaching the 

 nasals. 

 Genera: — Cariacus (subgen. Cariacus> Blastocerus, Furcifer, 

 Coassus), Pudua, Rangifer. 



Of the inequivalency and heterogeneous nature of section B I am 

 most fully aware. It can only be considered a temporary receptacle 

 for species whose natural relationship to sections A and C cannot as 

 yet be finally decided. 



III. On the Subdivision of the Sections into minor Groups. 



The definition of the minor groups into which the three primary 

 sections are ultimately divisible in such a manner as to render their 

 boundaries readily appreciable, is, I believe, almost impossible. And 

 yet that a solid bond of affinity unites the members of each natural 

 minor group, that they possess in common certain peculiarities which 

 distinguish them from species contained in other minor groups, no 

 one who has studied the Cervidae can for a moment doubt. This 

 being so, I think that the distiuct recognition of the various clusters 

 of species, into which the Cervidae naturally group themselves, is a 

 matter of the first importance in an attempt to understand their 

 entire life-historv. 



