956 MR. R. I. PococK ON THE [June 14, 



I am indebted to Mr. Edward Gerrard for the opportunity of 

 examining a dry skin of a female of one of tliese Deer, probably 

 refei'able to the Ningpo suljspecies K. cephalophas michianus. 

 There was no trace of frontal gland. 



The preorbital glands differed in no respects from those of 

 Cervuhis, consisting of a subcircular area of short-haired integu- 

 ment with a subcrescentic crease deeper at the two ends than in 

 the centre. The pedal gland of the hind foot resembled that of 

 C. reevesi, except that the cleft was relatively longer. On the 

 front foot there was no ghind and only a shallow depression, the 

 interungual web being moderately deep, owing to the anterior 

 and posterior skins of the pastern being considerably separated in 

 the middle line. The heel-tie and interungual web were quite 

 naked. The false hoofs were of com})aratively large size and 

 the hoofs were shorter than in C. reevesi. 



There were two pairs of teats as in other Deer. The absence 

 of the frontal glands and the presence of well-develojjed false 

 hoofs show that Elaphodus is a less specialised type than Cervulus 

 muntjac or reevesi. False hoofs, howevei', are by no means always 

 absent in specimens in the Gardens referred to C. muntjac. 



Genus Hydropotes Swinh. ( = Hydrelaphus Lydd.). 



Hydropotes inermis Swinh. 

 (The Chinese Water-Deer.) 



I have seen no example of ITi/drojwtes {=-J/)/(h-eIaphiis Lydd.), 

 but, according to Garrod (P. Z. S, 1877, p. 780), the preorbital 

 gland was present, but quite small, in a newly-born specimen of 

 II. inermis, and the metatarsal gland Avas absent. Of the pedal 

 glands this author wrote : — " In the fore-limb the interdigital 

 skin is inflected but slightly, and there is no special gland 

 differentiated, although the surface of the skin is appai'entl}' 

 studded with minute gland-openings. In the hind-limb the inter- 

 digital skin forms a deep pocket which almost com})letely separates 

 the toes, except that they are joined by a thin transverse skin- 

 fold along their posterior edges. The included skin is studded 

 with small glands." I infer from this description that the 

 posterior jjoda] gland resembles that of Cervulus or Dama and is 

 quite unlike the corres])onding gland of Capreolus, the genus 

 near which Sir Victor lirookc placed II i/dropoies on account of 

 the structure of its lateral metacarpals and vomer. Since W. A. 

 Forbes came to the .same conclusion touching the aliinities of these 

 two genera judging from their visceral anatomy (P. Z. S. 1882, 

 p. 637), there is no rea.son to douljt the correctness of Sir V. 

 Brooke's view. All the more interesting, therefore, is it to find 

 the difference in the pedal glands above alluded to ; because 

 llydropoles is the only member of the Telemeta carpal Deer yet 

 recorded as hiiving the interdii,'ital glandular cleft communicatincr 



