640 SIR V. BROOKE ON THE ROYAL ANTELOPE. ["May 21, 



similar to this very figure ; and this figure, as I have said above, re- 

 sembles in every detail the minute description given by Linnaeus of 

 his Cervus guineensis, the dark belly and markings, which are well 

 shown in the drawing, distinguishing it from the two other figures in 

 the same plate (43), one of which (fig. 3) I have endeavoured to 

 show is the type of the Moschus pygmceus of Linnaeus. It seems to 

 me clear therefore that the description of 0. guineensis given at 

 page 12, in the Mus. Adolph. Frid., was founded on this specimen, — 

 Linnseus being at the time strengthened in his opinion of the di- 

 stinctness of the species by finding two drawings (fig. 2, plate 43, 

 and fig. 1, plate 44) in Seba's ' Thesaurus ' closely resembling the 

 donbtless very immature specimen submitted to his inspection in the 

 king's collection. 



It is not, however, so plain what species was represented by 

 Cervus guineensis ; indeed I think it would be almost impossible to 

 form any conjecture upon this subject. There is not only the dif- 

 ficulty of selecting amongst the large number of species of Cephalo- 

 phi found on the west coast of Africa ; but, at the time Linnaeus 

 wrote, vast confusion existed between this group and the two widely 

 distinct groups, the Tragulince and the Moschi. It would therefore, 

 I believe, be impossible to determine to what exact species this 

 diagnosis belongs, bearing as it does strong traces of having been 

 founded on a very immature and imperfect specimen. 



There is much that leads me to the conclusion that Linnaeus 

 himself became gradually convinced that his diagnosis rested upon 

 insufficient grounds; and I find in his own copy of his 12th 

 edition, preserved in the library of the Linnaean Society, he has 

 drawn his pen through this diagnosis, as if to erase it from his work ; 

 and in Gmelin's edition of the ' Syst. Nat.' the species is not men- 

 tioned. On the whole, I think the circumstances do not admit of 

 the interpretation deduced from them by Prof. Sundevall, who, at 

 page 301, expresses his opinion that Cervus guineensis " was founded 

 on some error," and considers it probable that under that name 

 Linnaeus described the large specimen of Nanotragus pygmceus 

 which subsequently went to Stockholm with the Drottingholm col- 

 lection, mixing and comprising with this description "some other 

 notes taken from another source," possibly from Seba's fig. I, plate 

 43, "adding also notes retained in his memory from an examination 

 of Tragulus javanicus" 



On the contrary, as I have explained above, I consider C. guine- 

 ensis to have been founded on a young specimen of some small 

 species of Antelope, not now to be ascertained, but clearly distinct 

 from the Moschus pygmceus of Linnaeus. 



Subject to this exception, Professor Sundevall's elaborately worked- 

 out synonymy of this species appears perfect ; and with this alteration 

 it will stand thus, the earliest specific name to be adopted being 

 that of Linnaeus, in the 12th edition of the 'Systema Naturae" : — 



Nanotragus pygmceus. (Plate LIII.) 



1703. Trcs-petit Cerf, Bosnian, Guinea, pp. 236, 252. 



