534 JOURNAL, BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY, 1892. 



river Sind (Indus) and Belireli in the jungles. In Hindustan too they abound 

 on the banks of the river Sirwu (Gogra). In the course of my expeditions 

 into Hindustan, in the jungles of Peshawar and Hashnagar, I frequently 

 killed the Ehinoceros. It strikes powerfidly mth its horn, with which, in 

 the course of these hunts, many men, and many horses, were gored. In one 

 hunt, it tossed with its horn, a full spear's length, the horse of a young man 

 named Maksud, whence he got the name of Ehinoceros Maksud." 



The other reference to the Ehinoceros in Baber's Memoirs is at p. 292, where 

 an account is given of a Ehinoceros hunt close to Bekram, said in Erskine's 

 foot-notes to be Peshawar. The following brief extracts are sufficient to 

 shew that the animals seen and killed were Ehinoceroses, not deer : — 



•' HumaiAn (this was Baber's son, afterwards Emperor) and those Avho had 

 come from the same quarter, never having seen a Ehinoceros before, were 



greatly amused." "This Ehinoceros did not make a good set 



at any person or any horse." . . . "I have often amused myself with 

 conjecturing how an elephant and Ehinoceros would behave if brought to face 

 each other ; on this occasion the elephant-keepers brought out their elephants, 

 so that one elephant fell right in with the Ehinoceros. As soon as the elephant 

 drivers put their beasts in motion, the Ehinoceros would not come up, biit 

 immediately ran off in another direction," 



I think the above will suflB.ce to shew that the occurrence of the Ehinoceros 

 near Peshawar in the early part of the sixteenth century rests upon sound 

 evidence. No one reading the above extracts can reasonably doubt that they are 

 truthful statements by a well-informed writer, and I do not think there is any 

 foundation for the idea that the translation was bad or that the manuscripts 

 translated had undergone any serious alteration from the original. Certainly 

 there is nothing in the quotations I have given to suggest either corrupt text 

 or mistranslation. 



The above is a question of sufficient scientific importance to deserve correc- 

 tion, and I think it is a matter for regret that in this case and in some others, 

 my critic, who has not given his name, but who evidently has a considerable 

 amount of zoological knowledge, should have written more emphatically than 

 was necessary. I shall not attempt to reply to his criticism in detail, but I 

 should like to point out another instance in which I think he will find on 

 examination that he has overlooked the real facts. 



He writes, " Bosolaphus tragocamehis " — save the mark, is nothing but our old 

 friend Portax pictus, the Nilgai. The Maratha name Rulii or Bold is 

 wrongly given as Ed-i, and a name, given as that used by the Gonds, 

 Guraya, cannot be universal, as Forsyth, an excellent authority, gives Eohi 

 as the Gond name in the Song of Lingo." 



Now if instead of Forsyth's Lay of St. Lingo, which I should scarcely have 

 expected to find quoted as an authority for Gond names, my critic had looked 

 at the appendix to Forsyth's Highlands of Central India, p. 469, he would' find 

 in the valuable list of Hindi, Gond and Korkoo words there given the only 



