1896. ] MAMMALS FROM ECUADOR, 511 
Cervide,” P. Z. 8. 1878, p. 926, defining the genus Pudua, says 
‘ascending rami of the premaxille reaching the nasals”; I do not 
know what specimen he had before him, but I cannot find this 
character in any of the skulls in the collections of the British 
Museum or of the Royal College of Surgeons ; and I should like here 
to express my thanks to Professor Stewart for kindly placing this 
latter collection at my disposal. This character has unfortunately 
been laid down by subsequent writers as distinguishing the genus 
Pudua craniologically from Coassus, whereas it is more particularly 
coassine. Gray, Cat. Mamm. iil. 1852, p. 240, says “Intermaxillary 
short, not reaching near to the nasal.” Garrod, P. Z. S. 1877, p. 13, 
says “the gap being filled up by the appearance, superficially, 
of portions of the nasal turbinal.” The situation is explained in 
these two passages, but Professor Garrod ought to have added that 
the gap is more often filled up by an anteriorly projecting process 
of the maxilla: I find the space filled up in the two different ways 
in other genera, and also the premaxilla reaching the nasals, or 
not, even in members of the same species; there are instances of 
this in the Museum Collection, in deer both of the Old and New 
World. I write this to show the worthlessness of this point 
as & generic or even a specific character; and, indeed, Sir 
Victor Brooke says he thinks Gray made too much of it; so 
there is no doubt that if he had examined a larger number he 
would have seen how extremely variable it is; but having found 
out as much as he had, I think it is a great pity he followed suit 
in making so much of this character. I have examined the feet, 
and osteologically they agree with P. humilis, the ectocuneiform 
and navicular-cuboid bones being all in one. 
It will be seen that I have eradicated almost every dis- 
tinguishing craniological character between this genus and 
Coassus, the much deeper lachrymal pit and the narrower middle 
incisors (a character | am unable to prove in the new species) 
alone remaining ; so that if this animal is to be retained in the 
genus Pudua, Gray’s definition will have to be modified to include 
both forms of skull as well as the outward differences in structure ; 
but I do not consider these characters of sutlicient weight to 
justify a new genus being formed, for if this were done, the Pudus 
would have to be placed in a separate subfamily to do fair justice 
to the osteology of the feet, im which respect they differ so widely 
from all other New-World Cervide ; but this could not be justified, 
seeing that craniologically they are scarcely generically separable 
from either Furcifer or Coassus, wide as these two are apart inter sé 
in the form of their horns, texture of the coat, and growth of the 
hair on the face, and in the tarsal tufts. Gray says the Pudus 
have tarsal tufts; I have failed to find any trace among the 
specimens in the Museum collection. 
The genus Pudua may therefore be thus defined :— 
New- World group of Cervide: Telemetacarpi. 
A complete septum divides the nasal cavity into two distinct 
chambers. 
