780 MR. E. I. POCOCK ON 



Thinking, for these I'easons, that there vaust be some flaw in 

 the claim that the antlers of Elaphurus differ fundamentally from 

 those of, say, Rusa, I suggested the following homologies : — In 

 Rusa the antlers have a short base, a short undivided anterior 

 branch or brow-tine, and a large divided posterior branch or 

 beam ; in Elaplmrus they have a longer base, a very large divided 

 and more erect anterior branch or brow-tine, and a correspondingly 

 reduced, comparatively slender, divided or undivided posterior 

 branch or beam. 



This, however, was a mere guess, which I was unable to 

 substantiate by any evidence of much value. Believing, how- 

 ever, that the growth of the antlers in Elaphurus would finally 

 settle the question one way or the other, I asked Lord Tavistock 

 if he would kindly observe the process for me on one of the stags- 

 at Woburn. This he was good enough to do, and sent me in 

 addition the series of sketches reproduced in text-figure 111, 



These sketches show, in my opinion, that my guess was, as I 

 expected, correct. In the first three stages the antler is little 

 more than an excrescence dividing into an anterior and a posterior 

 bud. In the fourth stage the base is beginning to lengthen, the 

 anterior bud to grow upwards, and the posterior bud nearly 

 straight backwards. This process continues during the succeeding 

 stages, the anterior branch gradually taking the lead in size and 

 importance, and becoming divided distally into two tines. I can 

 see no escape from the conclusion that the anterior and posterior 

 buds of the very yoimg antler in this stag are the homologues of 

 the corresponding buds in the young antler of the Barasingha 

 {Rucervus duvaucelli) shown in text-fig. 109. That being so, 

 it is clear that the anterior branch of the antler of Elajjhurus is 

 homologous with the " brow-tine " and the posterior branch with 

 the " beam " of the antler in the Red Deer, Sambar, Barasingha, 

 and other deer charactei-istic of the Old World. The difierences. 

 between them are mainly a matter of size and direction of growth ; 

 that is to say, they are differences of degree and not of kind *. 



Antler-Groivth in a Sjyecies q/ Odocoileus. 



Writing of the antlers of the typical American Deer, Mr. 

 Lydekker said t: — " A large amount of misconception has ai^isen 

 with regard to the structure of the antlers of this group. In 

 1872 the late Dr. Gray rightly termed the single upright prong- 

 arising from the inner side of the lower part of the beam of the- 

 antlers of the Virginian Deer the ' subbasal snag ' ; but this snag 



* The subdivision of tlie anteriof branch of the antler in JSIaphurus is, of course, 

 no argument against it being the homologue of the "brow-tine," for the latter not 

 infrequently, though abnormally, produces an additional snag in Elaphine and allied 

 groups of deer. In some species indeed, as in the Irish Elk and Cerviis eldi, it is, 

 commonly and normally provided with supplementary processes. 



t ' Deer of All Lands,' p. 246. 



