338 CEEVULUS. 



Hodgson regarded the Nepal form as distinct, having descrihed it as Stylocerus 

 rutwa, and Sundevall adopted this opinion, but separated another from the same 

 locahty under the name of Frox stylocerus. This latter naturalist also considered 

 the Central and Southern Indian barking-deer as a distinct species, and identified 

 it with the Frox albipes, Wagner. This latter race Sykes had considered as C. 

 muntjac, and more lately Gray re-named it under the designation of 0. tamuUciis. 

 I have examined the types of Stylocerus rutwa and C. tamulicus, but I cannot 

 detect that they differ specifically from Cervulus muntjac of other parts of India, 

 and the specific name applied by Sundevall to the Malabar race seems to indicate 

 that it also is the same. They appear to me to be only local races of one widely 

 distributed species which ranges over the Himalaya, India, and Ceylon through 

 Arracan and Burma to the Malayan peninsula, Sumatra, and Java, spreading from 

 the Himalaya eastwards to the seaboard of China, and, according to Swinhoe, 

 stretching to the Island of Hainan, where, he says, C. reevesii, Ogilby, is replaced 

 by the allied Indian form. 



The skull of the Sumatran barking-deer figured by Marsden' C. muntjac, and 

 which has for many years been deposited in the Museum of the Eoyal College of 

 Surgeons, London (No. 3615), was described by Blainville as the type of his species 

 Cervus moschatus.^ The only difference that can be detected, as is stated in the 

 Catalogue of the Museum,^ is that the external ridge of the malar bone is thicker 

 and more prominent than in Indian specimens of C. muntjac. 



Cervulus curvostylis, Gray, is founded on a deformed pair of horns. The 

 pedicle of each horn is abruptly bent downwards, backwards, and outwards at 

 its origin, and the upper surface of the head is somewhat roughened. The 

 pedicles of the horn are otherwise well developed, and the abnormality is akin to that 

 downward bending and twisting of the horn which is occasionally observable in 

 the Indian and in the Persian gazelles. The cheek-pit does not seem to be larger 

 than in ordinary examples of the species. 



It would appear that the real characters of the Chinese barking-deer C. reevesii, 

 Ogilby, are not rightly understood, because Ogilby, who first described the 

 animal, remarks that it is about the same size as the Indian muntjac, while 

 other and more recent observers have recorded that it is nearly one-third smaller 

 than the latter. A comparison of adult skulls of the species certainly confirms 

 this opinion. The adult male skull of C. reevesii in the British Museum 

 has its extreme length only 5-75 as compared with 8-25 inches, which are the 

 dimensions of C. muntjac in the same collection. The nearly allied Chinese 

 barking-deer, the C. lacrymans, A. M. -Edwards, the skull of which I have com- 

 pared with the type of Q. sclateri, Swinhoe, and with which it perfectly agrees, 

 is seemingly also a larger animal than C. reevesii, the skull probably attaining to 

 7 inches in length ; tlie largest specimen in the British Museum, which is not fully 



* Hist, of Sumatra, Atlas, pi. xiii. No. 2 : No. 1, skull ; pi. xiv. No. 2, animal. 



« Nouv. Bull, de la Soc. Phil. 1816, p. 77. 



« Cat. Mus. Eoyal Coll. Surgeons, Lond. vol. ii. 1853, p. 598, No. 3615. 



