164 
divergent, slightly curved backwards below and forwards above, heavily 
ringed except for the terminal two or three inches. 
Female. Similar to the male, but the horns straight, slender, and less 
ringed; those of an adult rather less than six inches in length. 
Hab. Senegal and Gambia. 
The existence of a Gazelle of the group allied to Gazella dorcas in West 
Africa was first made known to us by the authors of the great folio work 
called ‘Histoire Naturelle des Mammiferes,’ issued at Paris, in which the 
figures were taken mostly from living specimens. In one of the early 
livraisons of this publication, in which French names only are primarily 
used, this species was referred to the ‘‘ Kevel” of Buffon, and under this 
name a young male was figured, stated to have been brought to France from 
Senegal. In a later livraison two young specimens of the same species, also 
from Senegal, were figured as the ‘“‘ Corine ” of Buffon, which was declared to 
be identical with the “‘ Kevel.” We have, however, already shown (under 
the head of Gazella dorcas) that both these terms of Buffon are referable to 
the last-named species, and that neither these terms nor the scientific names 
founded upon them can be properly used for any other species. Hence 
it follows that the first scientific name that can be employed for this 
Gazelle is Gazella rufifrons of Gray, under which term it was curtly 
described by that author in the ‘ Annals and Magazine of Natural History’ 
for 1846. Shortly after that period the same species was figured in 
‘Gleanings from the Knowsley Menagerie’ by Waterhouse Hawkins, whose 
well-drawn plate contains portraits of two males, a female, and a young one 
of the present species. 
As the drawings in the ‘Gleanings’ were not in all cases taken from 
animals living in Lord Derby's Menagerie, some of them having been 
prepared from specimens in the British Museum, it is nearly certain that this 
was the case in the present instance. It will be observed that Gray in his 
description mentions almost exactly such a series as being in the Museum as 
is drawn in the ‘ Gleanings,’ and it is not probable that a similar set should 
also have been living at Knowsley at the same time. 
All the specimens mentioned by Gray, with one exception, are still in the 
National Collection, and, as “ co-types” of the species, show clearly to what 
animal the name “rujifrons” should be applied. 
