CIIAIIAGTEHS OF ELAruURUS AND OTHER CERVID^. 



195 



The absence of antlers and the presence of large upper canine 

 teeth in Hydro'potes naturally suggested the possibility of kinship 

 between it and Mosclius. Since Garrod definitely disposed of this 

 view, it need not be further discussed. He closed his account 

 of the anatomy of Hydropotes SiH follows:— "To what group of 

 the Cervida3 Hydropotes is most allied there is still considerable 

 uncertainty. That it is not allied to the New-World type is 

 evident from its vomer not extending downwards to join the 

 osseous palate posteriorly. That it is not Cervuline [related to 

 the Muntjacs, which also have large canines] is equally certain on 



Text-iiii'ure 10. 



A. Section of fore foot of Sydropoten inermis. 



B. The same of the hind foot. 



account of its cuneiform bones being free from the naviculo- 

 cuboids. Its large Spigelian lobe favours the view suggested by 

 Sir Victor Brooke, that it is most closely allied to the Rusine 

 Deer" (p. 792). This view, I think, may be dismissed Avithout 

 hesitation. On the other hand, Forbes's opinion (P. Z. S. 1882, 

 p. 637) that Hydropotes is related to Ccqweolus is worth more 

 consideration. The two, at all events, agree in being " telemeta- 

 carpalian " and in the structure of the vomer and apparently of 

 the glans penis. But the differences between them are too many 

 and too deep-seated to admit of close affiliation. In the first 

 place, Hydropotes is the most primitive of all existing Cervidse in 



