774 MR. E. I. POCOCK ON 



sections. The first, which he called Telemetacarpi (Telemeta- 

 carpalia) because the distal ends of the lateral metacarpals 

 persist, comprises the Roe {Cajjreolus), the Chinese Water-Deer 

 {HydrojJotes), the Reindeer {Rangifer), the Elk {Alee), and all the 

 exclusively American deer with the single exception of the typical 

 Wapiti {Cervus canadensis) ; the second, called Plesiometacarpi 

 (Plesiometacarpalia) because the proximal ends of the lateral 

 metacarpals are usually present, whereas their distal ends are 

 suppressed, comprises all the deer of the Old World, except 

 the four genera mentioned above, but none of those of the 

 New World apart from the Wapiti. Amongst the Old World 

 forms the most important species for- the moment figuring 

 amongst the Plesiometacarpalia is Pere David's Chinese Deer 

 {Elaphurus davidianus) . 



Mr. Cameron's classification was widely diflierent. Dismissing 

 as unimportant the character relied upon by Brooke, he divided 

 the Cervidfe into three sections : one for the Reindeer with 

 antlers in both sexes, the second for the Elk with laterally 

 extended antlers, the third for the remaining species with antlers 

 restricted to the male and erect or suberect. This third section, 

 which alone concerns us now, was subdivided into two categories 

 of species, one comprising those in which the antlers consist, as 

 in the typical Old World deer and the Wapiti, of a "brow-tine" 

 and a " beam," to use Gordon Cameron's terminology, and the 

 other those in which the antler has, as he thinks, no brow-tine 

 but consists of a "forked beam," as in all typical American deer 

 (except the Wapiti) and in the Roe and Pere David's Deer 

 amongst the Old-World species. 



ISTow with regai'd to the affinities of the species composing- 

 Cameron's third division, there is only one point in which there 

 is complete divergence between him and Brooke. This concerns 

 Pere iSavid's Deer, a species classified by Brooke with the Red 

 Deer, Sambar, and other Elaphine stags, and by Cameron with 

 the American forms allied to the Virginian and Mule Deer, the 

 correct na\ne of which seems to be Odocoileus*. 



So far as I can see, the only a pi'iori objection to be raised 

 against Mr. Cameron's system, if we accept his premises, is that 

 it is based upon a secondary sexual character. But although it 

 cannot be justifiably consigned to oblivion on that account, it ma}'- 

 be doubtecl if it would ever have come into sufiicient prominence 

 for serious discussion had it not been for the unqualified acceptance 

 accorded it by Mr. Lydekker. However that may be, it is clear 

 that if Mr. Cameron's assumption that there is a fundamental 

 difference in structure between the antlers of the groups of deer 

 mentioned above is wrong, his classification, based on that claim, 

 goes by the board. 



In the following- pages I shall endeavour to show that his 

 classification is untenable, because a study of the seasonal growth 



* DorceJaphus and Cariacus are Isettev known but superseded terms. 



