1910.] CUTANEOUS SCENT-GLANDS OF RUMINANTS. 917 



may be distinguished as follows, using the glands as a basis for 

 their separation : — 



a. Pedal glands present on all four feet and opening by a short 

 duct with a small circular orifice on the front of the pastern 

 just above the hoofs ; summit of rhinarium swollen and 

 glandular, and extending back bej'ond the posterior edge of 



the nostrils ; no inguinal glands Felea. 



a'. Pedal glands represented at most by the duct of the glands 

 present in Pelea ; summit of rhinarium normal, not ex- 

 tending behind the posterior notch of the nostrils. 

 h. With two pairs of inguinal glands ; tail bushy as in Felea... Cervicapra. 

 b'. Inguinal glands absent or repi'esented by a single pair of 

 pouches ; tail tufted at the end. 



c. A single pair of inguinal glands Adenota. 



c'. No inguinal glands Kobus. 



In their volume on the Mammalia, Flower and Lydekkei- 

 classified the genera above referred to the Cervicaprin^e with the 

 Neoti-aginaj. The Cervicaprinfe, however, differ markedly fi'om the 

 Neotraginas, so far as my observations extend, in the sti'ucture of 

 the feet, since they entirely lack the deep and long interdigital 

 cleft on the front of the pastern found in the Neotraginae. 



It seems to me that, in looking for the relationships of the 

 Cervicaprinse on the lines followed in this paper, the following facts 

 should not be ignored. With the exception of the Indian genera 

 ■of Tragelaphinae, the preorbital gland is absent in that group ; 

 and in the Cervicaprinfe it is at most represented by an integu- 

 mental thickening. In both groups, and in no other subfamilies 

 of Bovidse, two pairs of inguinal pouches have been recorded. 

 More significant still is the fact that the structure of the feet, 

 whether pedal glands be present or absent, is the same in the 

 Cervicaprinfe as in the Tragelaphinse. Coi-roborating these 

 characters are the presence of two pairs of mammpe and a mode- 

 rate or large rhinarium, to which may be added the invariable 

 absence of horns in the females of Cervicaprinse and in most 

 genera of Tragelaphinre. I do not, however, attach much im- 

 portance to this character, despite the value given to it by some 

 writers*. 



At all events, it must, I think, be conceded that theCervicaprinfe 

 are moi'e akin to the Tragelaphinse than they are to the AntilojDinse, 

 BubaliucT, Neotraginse, Cephalophinse, or Oryginse, although the 

 retention by Felea of pedal glands, somewhat recalMng those of 

 the Oryginae, is a fact full of interest. 



The following genus is possibly related to the Cervicaprinse 

 (see p. 897). 



Genus Ammodorcas Thos. 



Ammodorcas clarkei Thos. 



(The Dibatag or Clarke's Gazelle.) 



The only materials of this genus and species I have seen are 



* W. L. Sclater, for instance, who uses it as a basis for grouping the S. African 

 subfamilies of Bovidas. 



Proc. Zooi-. Soc— 1910, No. LX. 60 



