970 MR. R. I. rococK ox THE [June 14, 



classifying J-Jhiphiirus with tlie Elaphine Deer, where Brooke, 

 in my opinion, correctly jil.iced it. For, according to this reading 

 oi the tacts, the antlers of A'laji/wrus have not passed far beyond the 

 birainous stage, seen transitorily but quite clearly in the growing 

 antlers of such Deer as Rasa, C. (^Panolia) eldi, and others. Tlie 

 peculiarities of the antlers of A7rt_/>//«>-zis consist in the lengthening 

 of the basal ])ortion, the lengthening and bifurcation of the 

 anterior biunch wliich concomitantly has a strong \ipward trend 

 so as to clear the face, and develoiiment of the posterior branch 

 into a long slender usually undivided tine. 



I suggest this homology of the anterior and posterior branches 

 of the antlers of ElapJatras w ith the so-called " brow-tine " and 

 " beam" of the antlers of the Ela[ihine gvonp, because this tSt;ig has 

 evidently been the stumbling-block in the way of the acceptance 

 of Brooke's classification both to ^Ir. Cameron and !Mr. Lydekker. 

 The latter, indeed, Avrites strongly on the point. He says : " If 

 antlers count for anything in classification . . . the genus 

 [ElaphxiTus] has nothing to do with any of the living Old World 

 Deer w'ith the exception of the Roes, while its alliance with the 

 American Deer seems close" ('Deer of all Lands,' p. 234). Of 

 course, antlers count something in classification ; but whether 

 they count as mucli as Mr. Cameron and Mr. Lydekker believe is 

 quite another matter. In my opinion they do not ; and I think 

 the reseml)lance Ijetween Elupluirns and the American Deer, or 

 at all events some of them, consi.sts in the fact that the antlers in 

 both have been specialised to a compa)ative]y small extent beyond 

 the Inranions stage, which was, I believe, common to all Detr 

 iifter the one-})ronged or mazamine stage was passed. I do not 

 think it can be claimed that such a rtsemblance is strong evidence 

 of affinity. 



Adopting, then, as a basis for the classification of the 

 Cervidw the skeletal chaiactcis pointed out by Mr. Garrod and 

 Sir Victor Brooke, I give the subjoined analytical key of what 

 appear to me to be unquestionably valid genera tested by the feet 

 and glands alone. Of covn-se, I speak on this point with reserve 

 as regards the American foi-ms like Jlippocainelus, Blastocerus, and 

 Eucervus, which I have not seen. Very possibly there are moie 

 genera to come into his section than I have admitted. Of the 

 Deer of the Old World I am juore confident. It mnst bo remem- 

 bered, however, that the genera of this family liave been established 

 for tlie most j)art npon characters other than those forming 

 the subject-matter of this paper, the branching and mode of 

 growth of the antlers being the pi incipal one. I liave not in all 

 cases made use of these characters because they are well known 

 and liave been repeatedly dpscriljed. 



In the preceding pages I have, without prejudice, adopted such 

 names as Ihjelaphus, liucervnK, J\iiiolia, and Pseuda.(is as con- 

 noting groups of subgeneric laiik. 1 have, liowever, no confidence 

 in the permanent adiiii.s.--ioii of any of them as h'ubgenera. In 

 ihe future they will probably be granted full generic status; but 

 this course or that of regarding tlieui as subgenera or as synonyms 



