102 The Mammals of the Sub-Himalayas and Tibet, 



no one not having access to the Museum (if the Museum contain the 

 proof*) ; nor can any blame whatever be attached to Dr. Jameson for 

 supposing the wild sheep of Tibet to be a distinct species, nearly alli- 

 ed both to the Siberian and American animals : and the throwing out 

 such a conjecture is the substance of what Dr. Jameson says. In 

 like manner is still to be demonstrated the specific independance 

 of the Barhel on the Nahoor ; and until that has been done, and 

 it has been shown moreover, that Dr. Jameson met with the former 

 and not the latter, your critic cannot have the least solid ground for 

 his censure, seeing that both animals occupy the site spoken of by 

 Dr. Jameson, whilst their resemblance is confessedly extreme ! In 

 a word, the observations I am remarking on, add not one syllable 

 to our knowledge of the wild sheep of Tibet, neither as to their 

 number of species, nor their habitats, nor their habits. In what, 

 then, does the value of the observations quoad hoc consist ? 



Your critic's next topic is the hares of Tibet ; and the amount of 

 new information furnished on this topic is a republication from the 

 Naturalist's Library of the measures of the hares of Britain ! in 

 order to prove Dr. Jameson's ignorance, he having casually said, that 

 the changing hare, is the largest British species, and your critic not 

 having proved the contrary by his array of measures of length 

 merely, without weights. For any thing produced by your critic the 

 changing hare may still be the largest species of Britain. But how 

 idle thus to press a point like this, the real question being the hares, 

 not of Britain, but of Tibet. There are three imperfectly described 

 Tibetan hares, viz. Tibetanus, Oiostolus and Pallipes ; and if your 

 critic had in any degree helped to remove the obscurity hanging over 

 them (by showing, for example, that Pallipes is the Tolai, and 

 Tibetanus the same as Oiostolus), he would have done some good. 

 As it is, his observations in re Hares, add not a particle to previous 

 knowledge, and therefore can have no value. 



Your critic next proceeds to the wild goats and goat-antelopes 

 of the Sub-Himalayas, Himalayas, and Tibet. These are, as is 



* What is that proof ? what spoils of Aramon exist there ? None can I think, 

 and as for allegations, they will not suffice ; for abundant materials for test- 

 ing Amnionoidcs have lately been sent home, and the result of their examina- 

 tion is just announced, viz. that the latter is a good and distinct species. 



