1910.] CUTANEOUS SCEXT-GLANDS OF IIUMINANTS. 897 



of the Gazelles above tlescribed than they are like the glands of 

 any otlier Antelope, they present well-marked difterences from 

 them. 



There was a well-developed knee-pad of black and reddish hairs 

 much longer than those of the surrounding skin and stuck 

 together with plentiful di-y secretion. 



On skins of this genus in the Biitish Miiseiun I found two pairs 

 of teats, l)ut no evidence of inguinal glands. 



As attested by otlier chai-acters, this genus is an abei'i-ant type 

 most nearly allied to Qazella ; but in the stiaicture of the feet it 

 seems to be less closely related to Gazella than is Antiloj^e or 

 Antidorcas. 1 do not feel sui-e, however, that the shape of the 

 upper wall of the interdigitai cleft in the example described and 

 figured was not due to mutilation, since the skin of the pastei'u had 

 been cut away at the back, perhaps thus loosening the connective 

 tissue which normally holds the invaginated sac in place. It is 

 veiy desirable that fresh examples of this species he examined. 



Excluding Frocapra, which I have not seen, the genei'a here 

 refeiTed to the Antilopinte may be distinguished as follows by the 

 structui'e of the feet and by their cutaneous glands : — 



rt. An iniuieiise (lorsnl ti-land extcmUny: from the middle ut' tlie 

 back to tli(! nnnp, feet, and preorbital gland ai>pro.\iniately 



as in GazcUa,\^vX no inguinal glands Antidorcas. 



a'. No dorsal gland. 



h. Feet with the folded interlingual weli extending only a 

 little more than halfway between the heels and the 

 proximal edge of the hoof in front ; no inguinal glands ; 



two pairs of mamma3 Litliocranius. 



h' . The folded interlingual integument extending forwards 

 nearly to the proximal margin of the hoof in front ; a pair 

 of inguinal glands ; normally a single pair of mamnnL'. 

 c. Interungual integument thinner, haiiy, the interdigitai 



cleft practically naked Gazella. 



c' . Interungual web smooth; interdigitai cleft more hairy... Antilope. 



In addition to the four genera just described, the Antilojiina?, 

 according to accepted views, comprises the genera Dorcotragus, 

 Aimnodorcas, Fa)itholo2)s, Saiga., anil ^'Epyceros. I do not, how- 

 ever, think these can be included in the subfamilv without 

 unwarrantably upsetting its homogeneity. Kinship is possible 

 between Ammodorcas and ^Epyceros on the one hand and between 

 Saiga and Fantholops on the othei-, but it does not appear to me 

 that the two latter have any close relationship with the two former; 

 it is indeed veiy far from obvious why the genera should be 

 associated in the pairs suggested. Pending the demonstration of 

 relationship such as would justify such a course, I propose to relegate 

 Fantholops, Saiga, and JEpyceros each to its own subfamily and 

 to leave Aininodorcas for the present unplaced. In the following- 

 pages Ami'iodorcas will be found near the Cervicapriuii? (p. 917). 

 It may be added that these four genera dift'er widely in the 

 structure of the feet from those here restricted to the Antilopimv, 



