392 On the Shou or Tibetan Stag. [No. 5. 



lengthwise, but not so in the latter ; and, thirdly, that there is less 

 compression of these bones in our animal than in Hippelaphus, or, to 

 speak more generally, in the tropical Deer. A fourth conspicuous 

 point of difference from Hippelaphus and the rest (including Stylo- 

 cerus) is the greatly less development of the cavity for holding the 

 larmier, to all which distinctions we may perhaps add the greater de- 

 clination of the encephalon from the base of the horns to the occipital 

 crest ; and, lastly, the somewhat ampler width of the occipital plane. 

 I have no longer any doubt that the Shou is the same species as 

 that described by me under the name of Affinis in the Journal, ten 

 years back. I got that splendid sample in the Tarai ; but it had, I 

 now conclude, been carried there from the Himalaya or from Tibet. 

 The Shou inhabits a wide extent of country in Tibet, but is rarely if 

 ever found in Chumbi, and not at all in the Juxtanivean districts of 

 Bhutan, as priorly affirmed. Wherefore it cannot be classed as Hima- 

 layan as well as Tibetan. Capt. Cunningham assures me that the 

 Stag of Cashmir is the same animal ; but Mr. Gray and Dr. Falconer 

 judge otherwise ; and, as it now appears that the Shou is not found in 

 any cis-Himalayan district, nor even in Chumbi with its half Hima- 

 layan and half Tibetan climate, I think this identity very question- 

 able, as also that with the Maral or Stag of Persia. But I am strong- 

 ly inclined to the conjecture that the Stags of Mongolia, of Mant- 

 churia, and of Southern Siberia, are all identical in species with the 

 Shou ; and I am almost satisfied that the Stag of Tibet is specifically 

 the same with the Wapiti of North America, especially that of Canada 

 or the Canadian variety, called often the North-western Stag. Besides 

 the ample spoils of the Shou, I have now before me a Stag's horn 

 from Ladak which may possibly belong to this species, though, being 

 that of a young animal, I cannot say. It is anomalous if appertaining 

 to the Shou by the extreme remoteness from each other of the two 

 basal tines, which in a horn of but 34 inches long is above 4 inches 

 (4^), whilst the next snag above may be the central, or it may be the 

 apical, one. Its position is about half way between the upper brow 

 snag or bez and the tip of the horn with which it makes a very un- 

 equal fork, and it is about the size of the (supposed) bez, but is less 

 than the brow snag. All three tines, moreover, have a less anteal and 

 more laterally external insertion and more upward direction than in 



