Or 
CONCLUSIONS. a1 
4. SEXUAL DIFFERENCES, MANE. 
It is unquestionable that some individuals have a mane, and 
that others have not. 
The mane seems to begin near the occiput, and to extend over 
the whole length of neck and trunk, being thickest near the head, 
and diminishing gradually to the tail where it evidently passes im- 
perceptibly into the common hair-coating. The mane is said to have 
been visible on its head (135); at the back of the head (figg. 17, 
24, n°. 102), which no doubt means just behind the occiput. Fur- 
mer- on the neck (p. 105, p. 1382, p. 138, p. 225, 9, 11, 12, LOW, 
103, fig. 31), from the back of the head a mane commenced (91), 
just behind the head the mane was thickest and got thinner further 
backwards (91), close behind the head a mane commences along 
the neck (92), the mane stretched rather far hindwards (92), the 
head was provided with a mane hanging down (152 4); evidently 
the mane extends from the head over the whole length of the neck 
and the trunk (18? fig. 28, fig. 29). The mane near the head is 
long (9, 152 a), tolerably long (92), two feet long (p. 105), and 
all along the neck and back: not very long (91), that it is of 
some length, we must suppose, for it is said to wash about to 
and fro in the water (91, 118, 120), and to spread to left and to 
right floating on the water (92), when the animal swims. The 
colour of the mane seems to be white (9) when dried up by the 
sunshine, but else it has the same colour as the rest of the body 
(102), brown (92, 152). ‘he mane resembles that of a horse (p. 
138, p. 225, 91, 92, 103, 118) or rather seaweed (p. 182, 118, 
135). 
Probably a mane was present in n°. 51, and 74; the back from 
afar, was irregular, uneven, and deeply indented; irregular and 
had a rugged appearance; see also fig. 36. 
Twice it is stated that there was no mane (26, 115, see also 
fig. 19 and 27), but we have so many reports which don’t men- 
tion the mane, and which surely would have mentioned it, if it 
had been present, that we are obliged to believe that those indi- 
viduals had no mane. In other instances the distance was too great 
to observe a mane, even if the animal had been provided with one. 
I am sure that here we have one of the differences between 
males and females. But, as I also firmly believe that there is a 
difference in size between males and females, I should not be sur- 
prised that, if these animals were better known to zoologists, the 
