The Mammals of the Bub-Himalayas and Tibet, 101 



as I hope to do, in showing that the value is nihil, I think I may 

 leave the fairness to the discernment of your readers, and yet trust to 

 have helped to put an end to all such doings for the future. I pro- 

 ceed, then, to examine the value of your critic's observations. Value 

 in Zoology must respect either the announcement of new species 

 or of new facts in relation to the structure, the habits, or the 

 geographic range, of known animals. Mere carping at another writer 

 cannot have value. And yet that is positively all the paper in 

 question contains, as I purpose to make apparent to every one. 

 The writer begins with the wild sheep of Tibet (very clumsily called 

 Chinese Tartary), and upon this topic the sum of his communication 

 amounts to a sheer expression of his indignation because Dr. Jame- 

 son had neglected to recognise the distinctions between Ovis Nahoor 

 and Ovis Barhel — Ovis Ammon and Ovis Montana, and had presumed 

 to indicate a new species allied to both the latter, and inhabiting 

 Western Tibet. Now, the Barhel may be distinct from the Nahoor : 

 the Argalis of Siberia and Tibet may be identical : and both (or the 

 one) may be distinct from the American Argali vel Montana. But, 

 it is certain, that no one has yet demonstrated these differences and 

 identities ; that the distinctions are of that minute kind which Zoolo- 

 gists may eventually recognise, whilst anatomists will continue re- 

 cusant ; and that in the present state of recorded facts, to dogmatise 

 in the style of your critic upon such points, is mere ' bow-wow-ism.' 

 With regard to the supposed new species it is further certain, that 

 we had no full or sufficient description of the Tibetan Argali before 

 the last number of the Asiatic Society's Journal came out ; and 

 I may add, what Mr. Robert informs me of, viz., that when he was 

 in London two years ago, and proposed to test the identity of 

 the Argalis of Siberia and of Tibet, he found that there were no spoils 

 whatever of the former, nor any adequate ones of the latter, forth- 

 coming in any English Museum, nor, as he was told, in any Con- 

 tinental one, unless perhaps that of Petersburg. And such would 

 seem to have been the case when Mr. Blyth last treated the subject, 

 who, therefore, then spoke hesitatingly. If he can now speak confi- 

 dently, it is very desirable he should do so ; for until he or some one 

 else do so, any alleged verification of the accuracy of the original 

 conjecture as to the identity of the animals can of course influence 



