918 Mu. K. I. rococK ox the [June 14, 



some dried skins in the British Museum. I maile, however, no 

 dissections. 8u])erficia]ly the feet showed no trace of pedal i,dands. 

 Certaiidy there were none such as exist in the Antilopina^ ; and I 

 judged that the feet resembled those of J^pjjceros or Kohus. Also 

 there were two paii's of well-de\eloped teats, and I could find no 

 evidence of the existence of inguinal glands. These features, 

 coupled with the long " bovine " tail and the shape and direction 

 of the horns, which are more Cervicaprine than Gazelline, should 

 exclude the genus from the Antilopinse. On the other hand, the 

 preorl)ital glands appear to be like those of Gazella, and the 

 muffle is hairy as in that genus. The skull also is very Cuizelline. 

 These cross-resem])lances make Ammodorcas extremely diflicult 

 to classify. It has been described as intermediate between 

 Gazella and Lithocranius. This is true of the length of the neck, 

 the structure of the upper liji, and some chai-acters connected 

 with the skull. On the other hand, in the structure of the feet, 

 horns, and tail, the genus is less (Jazelline than LitJiocranius : and 

 I am dispo.sed to think that the degree of relationship to Gazella 

 that the two exhibit may be faii-ly gauged by the fact that the 

 type-species of Lithocranius was referred to Gazella by so high an 

 authority as Sir Victor Brooke, and was for a long time cited 

 under that genus ; while the type -species of Ammodorcas was 

 oiiginally assigned on equally good authority to the genus Cervi- 

 capra. From this it may be inferred that the kinship between 

 Lithocranius and Gazella is tolerably obvious and that between 

 Ammodorcas and Gazella bv no means evident. 



Subfamily iE p y c e r i n je,. 



Genus JEpyceros Sund. 



^PYCEROS MELAMPUS Licht. (The Impala or Pallah.) 

 (Text-figs. 114, 115.) 



According to Owen, this species has large preorbital glands and 

 inguinal glands as well. AH recent authors, however, are in 

 agreement that there are no preorbital glands, and I could find no 

 trace of them on any of the dried skins in the collection of the 

 Briti.sh Museum, ' 



I am indebted to Messrs. Rowland Ward, Ltd., and to Mr. E. 

 Gerrard for the oj>poitunity of examining and cutting open the 

 hind feet of two specimens, and of thus being able to e.stablish 

 the absence of pedal glands on these liuibs ; and, .so far as I can 

 judge from looking at the fore feet of skins in the British Museum, 

 they are equally absent in the front legs, the feet of which seem 

 to be constructed exactly like those of the posterior pair except 

 for the absence of the two metatarsal glands, well known and 

 often recorded as present on each hind leg. 



Of the.se glands W, L. Sclater says : " attached to the lower ends 

 of the cannon-bones of the hind legs is a brush of very dark brown 



