NEW DEER FROM CENTRAL AMERICA. 375 
typical form, but the upper half has been worn perfectly smooth 
by rubbing. 
Affinities—Were it not for the difference in age among the 
specimens now before me, it might be thought that they were 
merely the young of some known species with branched antlers. 
That such is not the case becomes evident upon examination of 
the skulls. In the largest male skulls the teeth are those of the 
second or permanent set, and the crowns of the same are well 
worn. Furthermore, the sutures of the base of the skull are 
obliterated by anchylosis and the pedicels of the antlers are 
much enlarged. ‘There can be no doubt that this is the skull of 
an adult individual. 
* * # “ * * 
The question of whether C. clavatus may not be identical with 
some previously described species having simple antlers merits 
more serious attention. 
It must be taken into consideration at the outset that in 
dealing with species having simple horns we are debarred from 
employing one series of characters which are universally used in 
distinguishing between the different groups of Deer with branched 
antlers, namely, those drawn from the form of the antlers them- 
selves. While it is fitting, for example, that the species of Dama 
should be separated from the Cervus group, on account of the 
difference in the form of the antlers, if for no other reason, it 
will not, on the other hand, be logical to bring together into one 
group all species possessing simple antlers; for, on account of 
their very simplicity, these antlers lack tangible characters. We 
are forced, therefore, to turn to other parts to find the means of 
discrimination. 
It is unquestionable, I believe, that this new Deer belongs to 
the genus Cariacus, but the question as to which subgenus of 
the group it falls in remains to be answered. Our first inclination 
would be to place it in Coassus, on account of its lacking branched 
antlers, but, as we have just pointed out, it is unsafe to trust to 
this negative character. In fact, on account of other characters 
which we will now consider, C. clavatus cannot be placed in 
that subgenus. 
In Sir Victor Brooke’s Revision of the Cervide,* four 

* Proc, Zool. Soc, 1878, pp. 883—928, 
