CONGENERS. 825 
seen specimens of the Moose antlers, where the tines upon the 
palms were quite as stout and as long as on any from the Euro- 
pean variety, and the examiner would be inclined to assign to 
them an eastern origin, though the large size might make him 
hesitate, while I met with no specimens in the east where it 
would be little exaggeration to say that the whole antler was one 
great palm, as in the Halifax specimen shown in the illustration 
(ante, p. 193). I think all careful observers who have examined 
large numbers of both varieties, will agree with me that the 
antlers of the Moose are, as a general rule, more palmated, and 
have less conspicuous tines than those of the Swedish Elk. While 
I have selected those for illustration, which I believed would give 
a fair idea of the average form of the Elk’s antlers, I met with 
none of those extreme cases sometimes met with here, and none 
showing larger relative palms and less tines than some of these 
illustrated (see ante, pp. 195,199). I may say the same of the 
illustrations of the American variety, though the specimen from 
the Halifax museum should, undoubtedly, be considered as bor- 
dering on the extreme. ; 
The difference, then, consists in the size and color of the an- 
imals, and in the form of the antler, though in the latter the 
same general characteristics prevail in both. While these dif- 
ferences occur in a majority of cases, they are by no means uni- 
versal, nor are entire similitudes in these regards extremely rare, 
or even uncommon. 
Some comparative anatomists or osteologists have supposed 
they could discover a difference in the forms of the crania, which 
others could not see. While the form of the skull in each of 
the species of this genus is very constant, and so of great value 
in this investigation, a slight, and at most a doubtful, difference 
cannot be allowed a controlling influence. For myself I have 
been unable to find the supposed difference, and am by no means 
prepared to admit its actual existence. The most that has been 
claimed is, that one is a little broader than the other, which, 
however, I repeat, is not an accepted fact. Were the difference 
really appreciable, it would be universally recognized, for it is 
open to the inspection of all. 
In all other respects these animals are precisely alike, at least 
I can detect no other differences, and I know of no one who has 
pretended to do so. 
I will refer to a few of the similitudes, some of which are 
peculiar to this animal. 
