KONGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAR. BAND 35. N:0 3. 57 



little iraportance, such as the resemblance in shape oi i:)apilla incisiva, caruncula suhlimiualis 

 and 7iaso-turhinale, or are shared by nearl)' all ruminants except Bos, as the relative dimen- 

 sions of reticulum and psalterium. 



A comparison between the gnu and the common ox gives qnite another result. The 

 two animals resemble each other in many essential points, of which the foUowing may 

 be recapitulated. Ductus stensonianus has a similar situation and opening in both, the 

 relative development of the different parts of the pauncli is alike; the same is the case 

 with regard to the abomasus. The relative length of the large and small intestine, the 

 broad mesentery of the latter and the small number of coils of the former, the elongated 

 shape of the spleen are all features in which both animals agree. With regard to the 

 number and rows of cotyledonaiy papillaj and the arrangements at Cervix iitcri there is 

 also some resemblance. But there are also several, more or less important, differences. 

 Some of these may be considered as primitive characteristics which have been retained as, 

 for instance, the presence of an anteorbital gland, the relative dimensions of reticulum and 

 psalterium because these are shared bj' so many other ruminants belonging to different 

 groups. Some other differences may, however, indicate a specialisation, as, for instance, 

 the division of glanduln tliyreoidea into two not connected portions, the presence of only 

 two mammaa, certainly due to reduction, and the extremely simple construction of the 

 kidney, due to a fusion of the elements. It would be extremely interesting to know 

 whether any of these latter anatomical differences distinguishing the gnu from the common 

 ox are shared by the Caffer buffalo or not. If they were they would speak for the possible 

 connection of these forms. 



As the knowledge about the anatomy of these animals is still so restricted it is 

 difhcult to decide concerning those characteristics which are alike in the gnu and the 

 common ox, whether they depend upon parallelism or a common origin. It is to be 

 hoped that the knowledge may be extended so that the question may be solved in a satis- 

 factory manner. For my own part, I am, however, inclined to assume, at least pro teinpore, 

 on account of the partial agi-eement of the soft anatomy, as well as of the common 

 characteristics of the skull (see the foregoing chapter) that the gnu and the Bovimv have 

 the same origin. But from this common stock the forms with a more or less completely 

 hollow core may constitute one branch, the ancestors of the African buffaloes and the gnu, 

 (and allies) another. The latter branch is then secondarily divided into two diverging 

 branches. One of these has developed into the present African buffaloes, the other, 

 which has retained a greater number of primitive characteristics, comprises the Bubalidine 

 antelopes. The common stock may already have had extensive fi'ontal sinuses in connection 

 with a basal sinus in the core. But låter the development of the horns ^vent into different 

 directions galning the delinitive results described in the foregoing chapter. As to the soft 

 anatomy the features common to the gnu and the ox may already have been developed 

 in the hypothetic common ancestors. The same might also be assumed about the broad 

 shape of the incisors. Tlie differences should then solely be due to the retaining of the 

 primitive characteristics or even reduction on one hand, and development on the other. 



K. Sv. Vet. Aka.l. Hiuidl. Buud 35. N:o 



