Aug. 3, 1895.] 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



96 



CHICAGO AND THE WEST. 



The Chase of the Fantail Deer. 



Chicago, 111., July 18.— The fantail or flagtail deer 

 question reached a very interesting point in the columns 

 of Forest and Stream when the matter was taken up 

 editorially (in the issue of July 6) in connection with 

 Capt. Kendall's statement of his actual experience with 

 the animal in question. Naturally, however, any new 

 testimony on either side, if we may say there are "sides," 

 will be welcome to both sides, and I think I have some- 

 thing to add. The following letter is from the man who 

 first started me to writing about this elusive beast, and 

 who now is tarrying in Chicago. He say6: 



"I have just read Capt. Kendall's article in Forest and 

 Stream of June 29 in regard to fantail or, as he calls them, 

 'flagtail' deer in the Southwest. I wish to say that the 

 captain's description of the 'flagtail' tallies exactly with 

 the 'fantail' deer of the Black Hills of Dakota and Wyo- 

 ming. I have seen quite a number of deer of this kind 

 in the hills, and in every instance found them very small. 

 Roughly speaking, they would average about one-half the 

 size of antelope. That is, a fantail buck is about one-half 

 as large as an antelope buck, does of the two species cor- 

 responding the same way. In the hills they range high 

 up, mostly around the heads of canons where the general 

 nature of the country is what is called 'park,' that is, 

 open woods and open glades like a park; but the deer are 

 always 'jumped' from the thickets of quaking asp and 

 underbrush that fill the canon heads starting in this 

 'park country.' I have seen both the bucks and does, and 

 could have killed them in several instances, but never 

 did, because there were plenty of blacktail and whitetail 

 in the same part of the country, and a fantail always 

 looks too dainty and pretty to kill, anyhow. 



"The blacktail of this section range in the open or sage 

 plains to the west of the fantail ranges, and while the 

 whitetail deer range in the same section with the 'fans,' 

 they are lower down, being nearly invariably jumped 

 from the thickets of willow, quaking asp and wild rose of 

 the lower river bottoms. The 'fans' are never found in 

 company with the common whitetail, and I never saw or 

 heard of a 'fan' being seen down in the valleys. They 

 seem to prefer the roughest, highest country below the 

 Bnow line, and to stay there. 



"They will sneak and dodge among the boulders and 

 brush, just as the Captain says they do in the Southwest. 

 They are a hard deer to start into a run, permitting a 

 close inspection of the living animal, and they seem to be 

 almost devoid of fear of human beings. I have walked 

 up to within a few feet of them before they ran, and then 

 they didn't seem to be in much of a hurry about going. 

 One thing I noticed which the Captain seems to have 

 overlooked; that is, the fantail is very daintily formed, 

 the legs being very much thinner and more fragile look- 

 ing in proportion to the size of the deer than is the case 

 with the whitetail. This feature is noticeable in the whole 

 form of the animal. You are impressed with the idea of 

 fragile daintiness in build at once. Another point is the 

 shape of the horns, which follow the general appearance 

 of the whitetail, except that they are flattened or more of 

 a knife-blade shape up and down, instead of round, like 

 the whitetail's. The spikes, too, are not so pronounced as 

 in the whitetail, and the 'flat' characteristic is very notice- 

 able along toward the point of the horn. 



"While in Indiana last week I visited Mrs. Ansley, 

 whose son was with me in the Black Hills in '90, and I 

 borrowed a pair of fantail horns which the boy Robert 

 found on Inyan Kara Mountain, Wyoming. These horns 

 are the pair Mr. Hough mentioned as being 'in sight,' and 

 I brought them up for him to photograph if he cared to. 

 ' They are rather larger than the ordinary fantail antlers, 

 : hut they are a very fair representative pair. They have 

 1 been exposed to the weather and the points are somewhat 

 broken, but they will sh'ow what a 'fantail' carries on his 

 head. The distance across this skull between the eyes is 

 2£in. From the base of the horn to the cavity of the eye 

 is liin. The horns stand 2in. apart where the 'burr' is, at 

 the base, or where they loosen when shed. From the 

 'burr' to the tip they measure just Sin. , and the tips are 

 8£in. apart. The left horn has four points or spikes and 

 the other is one point 'shy' of this number. The left horn 

 is lin. wide up and down at a point 3in. from the tip, but 

 it is only fin. thick crossways and measures 2|in. around 

 at the same point. The right antler is about the same. 

 Both horns are round at the base, but only measure 2in. 

 there. 



"This set of horns I know to be a pair of "fantail'' 

 horns, meaning horns that were worn by the so-called 

 fantail deer of the Black Hills. Now, as to the species 

 and whether the fantail and the common whitetail are 

 modifications of the same deer, I am not enough of a 

 naturalist to say. As far as I know they are not; they 

 have a smaller size, a larger tail in proportion to the 

 body, are far lighter and daintier in build, range higher 

 on the mountains and have less fear of men. They 

 'sneak' instead of running, and love the dense thickets of 

 the canon heads. The main feature of difference, how- 

 ever, is in the horns, a photo of which Mr. Hough will 

 probably present to Forest and Stream ere the waning 

 of the moon. This constitutes about all I can remember 

 in regard to them just now. "El Comancho." 



"El Comancho" kindly brought the set of antlers he 

 mentions, and to-day I had a photograph made for a cut 

 in Forest and Stream. It was necessary to show the 

 relative size as well as the mere outline of these horns, so 

 I got a specimen of whitetail head (only partially finished 

 in mounting, but of fair type) and also a mounted ante- 

 lope head, to act as measuring units for the eye. The 

 above two heads and the "fantail" horns I hung on nails, 

 all on the same perpendicular board, and the cut so shows 

 them, a foot rule being included to further aid the eye. 



It will be noticed how very small the "fantail" horns 

 are, yet how daintily and exquisitely shaped. They look 

 babylike, yet evidently they are from an adult specimen. 

 As "El Comancho" says, the horns look like the horns of 

 larger deer in a general way, but if one glances a second 

 time at them I think he will discover in the outstanding 

 look and breadth across the top very much more like the 

 blacktail type of antler than like the whitetail, in which 

 latter there is so often more of a curving in and dropping 

 down in front, distinct from the tree-like formation fre- 



quent in the blacktail. But let the picture speak for 

 itself, and let Forest and Stream have the credit of 

 being the first and only newspaper to publish even so 

 much in actual illustration of the so-called "fantail" 

 deer. ' 'El Comancho" and I have sent out quest for some- 

 thing still better and more tangible in shape of evidence, 

 and though this may be long in coming, I am of the 

 belief that if Forest and Stream should ever really want 

 a fantail badly enough to send for it, Messrs. "El Coman- 

 cho," Hofer and Hough could just about go out and get it 

 (though maybe not a "pine hut bear.") 



Going on the presumption that there are two beliefs or 

 "sides" to this pretty little study in natural history, let us 

 hark back a little. If my memory serves me, time was 

 when scientists pooh-poohed the idea of the existence of 

 the fantail or flagtail deer, but set the stories of them 

 down to romance or falsehood or loose observation (yet 

 what better observers did one ever know than the old 

 hunters?) Yet in face of continued stories of the sort and 

 of growing facilities in the journalism of natural history 

 — which must have value even with the literature of 



WHITETAIL. 

 AKTLELOPE. 

 FANTAIL. 



natural history— let us say that scientists became willing 

 to say that some one was only mistaken, not insincere. 

 Even science could not overlook the value of evidence 

 such as the reports from Texas, New Mexico, Wyoming 

 and Montana made in regard to the existence of some such 

 animal— or rather, some such animals. The positive testi- 

 mony of men like old Bill Hamilton, who had actually seen 

 the animals after which (before his time) the Fantail Hills 

 of Montana were named (and the name exists there to-day), 

 could not fail to be worth much against the negative 

 testimony of even a great many intelligent and scientific 

 men, who had never seen any such animals because they 

 had never been where the animals were (and because the 

 old hunters were eating deer, not preserving them as 

 specimens). Add to these old tales the positive testimony 

 of Capt.Kendall and"El Comancho" as to existence,habitat 

 and habits, and add still to this our picture of the fantail 

 horns shown herewith, and our friends, the scientists, 

 surely must abandon the former position of general denial. 

 Now comes science and says, "The fantail is not a distinct 

 species. You must prove that it is a species." 



At this stage of the argument, we are, as Forest and 

 Stream suggests, all arrived at a place where each side 

 may withdraw with victory. We differ as to the "dum" 

 and "dee," but we unite on the "tweedle." For my part, 

 and let me say for the part of "El Comancho" and those 

 who hold with us, we do not care whether it is species or 

 not; we only say it is fantail and I think we prove it. 

 To my mind and to that of the average Western hunter, 

 there will always be fixed the permanent differences 

 between the grizzly, silver tip, cinnamon and black bears. 

 Yet I know this is scientific folly, and believe science to 



be also right in saying that there are only two species of 

 bear in this country, the grizzly and the black. This 

 latter is my Sunday belief. During weekdays I let in 

 the silver tip and cinnamon, with a leaning to some 

 more* 



But let us take Up the question where our friends the 

 scientists and our friend Forest and Stream sets it 

 down, and meet the other side on its own chosen ground, 

 that is, on the assertion that separate species is not proven 

 for the fantail. Even on this statement I believe we shall 

 make it logically interesting for the other side, and 

 perhaps put it on the defensive in turn. I don't knovv 

 what constitutes species. Neither does Science, nor any- 

 body else. There are no sharp division fences in nature, 

 and continually individuals occur which do not classify. 

 Science cannot tell just where a new species began, nor 

 when a new species is going to begin. There is no scien- 

 tific determination of the instant of such value ir 

 individual type, of food conditions and of genera 

 environment, as will insure the begetting of 

 .continuous or specific type from that time on. ScieUc 

 does not know when the blacktail's tail turned black c 

 when the whitetail's tail turned white. It can't sa 

 which turned first or why. It can't say why the black - 

 tail holds to its range and the whitetail to its own. It 

 can't say whether or not the tail of the mule deer would 

 grow white if it were transferred for 1,000 years to the 

 pine forests of the East. In short, when science stands 

 under the bugbear flag of "species," it is under a banner 

 extremely hard to defend, and no one knows this better 

 than science herself. Let us have no awe of the word 

 Species. It is as loose and as inexact as the word Fan- 

 tail ! Let us not try to define species absolutely, for no 

 one can do that. 



But our friends choose the definition that species is 

 something which will reproduce itself continuously in its 

 typical form. They say that the fantail is not shown to 

 do this. In reply we say that it is by no means shown 

 not to do this, but that, to the contrary, there are very 

 good reasons for believing that it does do this. Now the 

 question is, which side must take the burden of proof ? 

 Surely it should not be the one which has the stronger 

 natural position. Let us see whose position seems logic- 

 ally the stronger. 



We have shown (I think) that the fantail does exist in 

 certain numbers in some localities, yet that it could leave 

 these localities if it liked. It is true, we have not shown 

 that whitetail deer do not also frequent the same section 

 of country, and hence we leave open the argument that 

 there may be dwarf specimens of whitetail deer. But 

 upon the other hand, if scientists assert that they are 

 dwarfs (and they are either dwarfs or a distinct species) 

 we have the right to ask why the fantail deer is not heard 

 of in all parts of the entire range of the whitetail deer? 

 As a matter of fact, the fantail is heard of (so far as I 

 know) only over country which is much more nearly to 

 be called the blacktail range. I never heard of a fantail 

 deer in the flat pine country of Wisconsin or Michigan, 

 much less of numbers of them in a restricted section 

 there. It is not claimed for the smaller deer of the south 

 of Florida, nor for the little deer of Mexico. The hunters 

 do not tangle up over this. They say the fantail is "dif- 

 ferent." 



Now then, Science will admit that there may be 

 a smaller species of deer than the whitetail, 

 because such species are known in other coun- 

 tries. Science cannot say that such a species cannot 

 exist in the environment furnished by this continent. 

 Very well. Science, Forest and Stream, "El Comancho" 

 and I are all ignorant about it. We don't know. We 

 don't find fantails in Wisconsin and we do find them in 

 Wyoming. What are we to believe? Are they dwarfs or 

 a species? Were they dwarfed there or bred there? Gen- 

 erations ago the hunters found them there — named mount- 

 ains after them. Why do they still remain? Were they 

 dwarfed there all these generations or did they select in- 

 dividuals of their size and breed there? All around them 

 are big whitetail (and also blacktail) deer. Why did 

 not the conditions apply to them and dwarf them or make 

 their tails longer also? Were these "fantail" deer dwarfed 

 there or bred there? Of course science cannot say the lat- 

 ter. Which side, then, has the stronger presumptive 

 case in the face of the evidence actually produced? 

 Which side must take the corner of defense? Upon which 

 side devolves the duty of going out and securing a pair of 

 live fantail deer and making the (always questionable) 

 experiment of reproduction of specific type in captivity, 

 the peanuts of the park for the browse of the mountains? 

 Until science asks us to bring in a pair of dodos and a pair 

 of Labrador ducks before declaring on their species, I do 

 not think she should call it our duty to get this pair of 

 fantails. I submit we have done much, if not enough, to 

 show them alive, distinct, wild, generation after genera- 

 tion, on the same country, and not on other country, 

 where, under the hypothesis of science, they should haye 

 appeared in phenomenon. To the plain people like my- 

 self, who belie ve in William Tell and cinnamon bears, the 

 chase of the fantail has brought us so near in sight of a 

 species good enough for plain folk that I am already 

 studying what to call it. As I look at the dainty set of 

 antlers before me— so small I can cover all the skull bone 

 in my hand — I am inclined to call it Cervus comanctiieii- 

 sis fantailii, Lid. There is no monopoly in the country 

 when it comes to discovering and naming new species, 

 and about all we are shy on this one is a new watermark 

 on the frontal bone, or something of that sort. By all 

 means let us register the fantail deer along with the horn- 

 snake — both of which, I do not hesitate to say, will event- 

 ually find their way into the office of Forest and Stream, 

 whether in the humility Of non-species, just as nature 

 made 'em, or in the pride of recognition by science, which 

 has long tried to saw off the products of nature into arti- 

 ficial sections, beyond whose lines no self-respecting 

 creature should step. Only they do. 



About the "pine-nut" bear I am not so sanguine, for 

 science will ask me to prove species, which I can't do, any 

 more than I can on the dodo, because there are so few 

 dodos. If science would allow me to say there is such a 

 thing as a cinnamon bear, I would cheer up and hold out 

 for the "pine-nut" bear. As it is, all I can do is to submit 

 that the evidence of one man who sees the rare occurrence 

 of a murder is worth more than that of the two hundred 

 millions who did not see it. I submit that so old and 

 trustworthy a hunter as Bill Hamilton, for instance, 

 would know a wolverine if he saw it. In his "pine-nut" 

 bear he would recognize merely a different sort of bear, 

 not a specific sort of bear, just as he would call the cinna- 



