1884.] 
_ white hairs about it, then we should certainly know it was a mule 
_ deer. These tails are illustrated in the work above referred to, 
_ onp. 234, and the glands on p. 254. But these indicia of species 
_ are entirely wanting, and we only have a picture of these abnor- 
_ mal antlers to enlighten us. If the antlers were normal we might 
ine the species with considerable confidence. 
The antlers of the common deer are usually less spreading than 
_ those of the mule deer, though not always so, and in this respect 
these answer best to the former, though their position may have 
been altogether changed by the accident. The strongest evi- 
dence to show that it was a common deer I see in the basal snag 
near the butts of each antler ; these are very large and both bifur- 
cated, This snag is always present on the normal antler of the 
Virginia deer, and is usually present on that of the mule deer, 
IS very much smaller on the latter than on the former. 
On the common deer this member is frequently bifurcated on 
large old specimens but never on the mule deer, though on large 
Specimens we frequently see a rudimentary branch, but I have 
never Seen anything like an equal bifurcation or even a fairly de- 
veloped tine. But the bifurcations of these prongs are not as we 
min the natural growth. The prong divides into nearly 
equal parts very near its base and these separate at angles of 
wventy degrees or so.. In the few cases where I have seen the 
basal snags fairly divided into approximately equal parts, the forks 
grown up nearly parallel, but when the antler itself is so dis- 
figured as this we should not expect any member to be in its 
natural form. It is the unusual proportionate size of this nasal 
3 ee Which inclines me to attribute the specimen to a Virginia 
Zoology. 737 
7 ~ size of the deer suggests a larger species than the common 
RD which, as already suggested, is very considerably smaller 
ao than in higher and colder latitudes, but I have no doubt 
“Ser specimens than this is claimed to be are occasionally 
ES PRP E Sikes ha ia oe al ree E a A an SS ue 
“ne mule deer js aka iably 1 ies than the com- 
ppreciably larger species 1 
qon deer, and hence, the large size of this specimen suggest this 
Where th; ule deer; while the rarity of this species in the country 
“dhe was killed, and the abundance of the common deer 
Two oye atter as most probable. | 
all cube Sive Something for the ear or the tail of this deer that 
A iti i hese 
Bo. might be resolved; as it is I cannot tell to which of t 
ved eccles this deer belonged from the mere picture of a dam- 
and antlers of an unnatural growth. It is easier to tell 
T D. Caton. 
aral] Y the Editor —The case above cited by Judge Caton is 
"ed by a similar one which came under my observation 
