1 86 Rusine Group 



I saw the type in the Museum at Frankfort ; and it appeared to me to closely resemble 

 Cervus sika. Upon the occasion of my last visit to Frankfort, I sought in vain for 

 the specimen, and much fear that it has been destroyed." 



2. Cervus caspicus 



Cervus caspicus, Brooke, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1874, p. 47, 1878, p. 909 ; Lydekker, 

 ibid. 1897, p. 38. 



This presumed species was named on the evidence of a frontlet and antlers obtained 

 from the districts lying to the south-west of the Caspian. The type specimen, which 

 was figured in 1874, was originally in the collection of the late Sir Victor Brooke 

 but could not be discovered after his death. The antlers measure 26 inches in length 

 along the curve, and are three-tined. In his original description Sir Victor Brooke 

 referred the species to the rusine group, comparing it to C. unicolor and C. hipp- 

 elaphus ; but in his memoir of 1 878 it was placed provisionally in the sikine group, with- 

 out any reference to the previous determination. The ground of this redetermination 

 seems to rest upon another antler from the Karun valley, in the Luristan district of 

 Persia, which may or may not belong to the same species as the type specimen. 

 With regard to the latter, it appears, so far as can be determined from the figure, 

 that the original determination was correct, and that the specimen is really rusine, the 

 interval between the brow-tine and the terminal fork being much greater than the 

 one between the brow-tine and the first fork of a sika's antler. From subsequent 

 investigations, it is now nearly certain that neither a rusine nor a sikine deer 

 inhabits the district of Persia in question ; and it appears highly probable that the 

 type specimen belonged to the Indian or one of the allied races of sambar, and was 

 imported into Persia. 



3. Other Names 



The following names have been applied by Heude (Mem. hist. nat. emp. Chinois) 

 to specimens, mostly skulls, belonging to the present group. With regard to these 

 I cannot do better than quote the following observations of Mr. D. G. Elliot, 1 who 

 writes as follows : — " The paper is really of little assistance in determining the various 

 species, and the author appears to have seen a new one in almost every example he 

 procured, and unless one has access to the material in his possession, it will be 

 practically impossible to recognise the animals upon which he has bestowed so great 

 a list of names." The list runs as follows, viz. — 



[. Ussa gorrichanus, vol. ii. p. 21 (1888) Philippines. 

 2. „ barandanus, ,, p. 22 ,, „ 



1 Publ. Field Columbian Mus. — Zool. vol. i. p. 157 (1897). 



