968 Mi{. n. I. rococK os tiik [June 14, 



the young. Thitj ai>suuiption I believe to be false. If true, we 

 should expect to find antlers of a primitive type in Fangifer. 

 This, however, is not claimed, Mr. Cameron describing those of 

 the Caribou "as the most specialised of existing antlers." Yet 

 their fundamental resembUviu-e to the antlers of the Deer, in 

 ■which these we-'ipons are well developed, is clear enough; and 

 this fact is difficult to explain in conjunction with Mr. Cameron's 

 double claim that tlie antlers of UaiKjifer aie highly specialise<l 

 and that the genus has followed a line of its own in evolution, 

 independent of all existing species. The characters of I'avyifer 

 are, in my opinion, much more easily interpreted on the hypothesis 

 tliat the genus is a specialised representative of the Dorcelaphine 

 (Cariaciue) Deer. 



In the case of Alee, the lateral direction of the antlers is 

 admittedly a peculiarity ; but it is as obviovxsly a derivative, not 

 a primitive, feature. As for the antlers themselves, they aie, in 

 their sim])le form, clearly referable to the so-called "forked type" 

 characteristic of Mr. Camei-ou's third section of Deer ; and Alee, 

 like Rangifcr, may be best interpreted as a specialised meudjer of 

 that group. 



Mr. Cameron also claims some support for his view of the great 

 antiquity of these two Deer on the gi'ound of their wide range 

 in space ; but although it may be ti'ue, very broadly speaking, 

 " that types wliich have a wide range in time have also a wide 

 range in space," theie are probably no species in the world to 

 which this remark applies with less force than it does to those 

 inhabiting subarctic latitudes. For it is known that in com- 

 paratively recent geological times subarctic regions formed a 

 continuous tract of land with similar physical conditions, oftering 

 no barrier to the eastward or west\v^n•d migration of the indi^jenous 

 species adapted to the surroundings. 



The antlers of ]\Ir. Camei'on's thii'd group (Cariacics, Capreohis, 

 Elaphurus) are dei-i\-able, using liis own words, from aiitlers 

 consisting of a " forked beam with ecjual or subequal prongs," 

 the Neotropical Guemal [Uippocavielus) being cited as an illus- 

 tration ; while the antlers of his fouith group (Cerrus,Cerrulits) 

 are derivable from an " unbranched l)eam with a true brow- 

 tine." 



The terminology here employed is apt to confu.se the issue. 

 It suggests a fundamental difference between the two types of 

 antlers described, whereas, on the face of it, it appeals that 

 Mr. Cameron is describing in different words structures whicli 

 ai-e to all intents and purposes identical. An " unbranched l)eani 

 with a brow-tine" and a "forked beam" are alike describable 

 as biramous antlers consLsting of an anterior an<l a posterior 

 prong arising from a common ba.se, the anterior bi-anch of the 

 "forked beam" corresponding to the "brow-tine" and its posterior 

 bi'anc-h to the so-called " lieam." lentil this suggested honuilogv 

 be disproved, Mr. Cameron's assumption of the fundamental 

 diversity of the two types of antlei-s cannot be regarded otherwise 



