36 
ZOOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 
Menagerie of the Zoological Society of London, as they appear in their sum- 
mer dress, after being shorn. Proc. Zool. Soc. 1866, pp. 580-581, pi. 44. 
Camelopardalis. Dr. Crisp has made some further observations on the 
anatomy of the intestinal tract of the Giraffe. Proc. Zool,. Soc. 1866, p. 663. 
^ Antilocapra. Dr. Canfield’s most iuteresting observations on the habits of 
the Prongbuck are published in Proc. Zool. Soc. 1866, pp. 105-110. With 
regard to the periodical shedding of its horns (see Zool. Record, ii. p. 46), 
he proves beyond a doubt that they are shed and renewed every year until 
they attain to the full size, and shows it to be very probable that they are re- 
newed annually after that time (perhaps from the^ourth or fifth year). The 
author’s observations with regard to the progress of growth of the horny 
sheath are the following : — A male born in the commencement of the year 
dropped the horns in December; ^Gvithin a day or two, or a week at 
most, the protuberances began to be tipped with a point of horn once more, 
that grow from the base, and increased in size for a year.” The anterior 
prongs made their appearance in the third year. Each of the basal anterior 
protuberances at length became tipped also with horn;” they were not as 
yet connected with main horn, but” ^^very soon became consolidated.” 
Dr. Guay (Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 1866, xviii. pp. 323-326) refers to 
various authors who have either mentioned or denied the. fact of the annual 
shedding of the horns, lle^points out the difference of the horns of the 
Prongbuck from those of the Cervidce^ and their identity with those of the 
true hollow-horned Ruminants. ^^It only differs from them in the outer 
case of the horn being porous, and formed of loosely agglutinated, or rather 
felted hairs ; and in the case being deciduous and renewed annually, instead 
of being permanent and strengthened by internal laminj© so as to form a hard 
horn.” The author regards this peculiarity as a very good character to sepa- 
rate the Prongbuck into a distinct family, Antilocapridce^ between JBovidce 
and Giraffid(B. 
Mr. ScLATER read a paper on the same subject before the British Associa- 
tion, an abstract of which is given in Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 1866, xviii. 
pp. 401-404. Ho explains the mode in wliich he supposed the shedding to 
be effected, thus : — ‘‘ After the old horn was cast off, the horny matter, which 
was at first entirely confined to the upper end of the new horn, gradually 
spread itself down to its base, enveloping the numerous liairs with which the 
new horn was clothed when first appearing, and ultimately checking their 
growth and destroying their vitality. After the horn was perfected and 
hardened, now hairs developed themselves beneath the epidermis, and, not 
being able to force their way through the horny covering, became, as the 
author believed, the chief agent in causing the shedding of the horn. As 
regards tlie general structure of the horns of the Pronghorn, it was quite 
evident that they had little or nothing in common with those of the Deer. 
They consisted of true horn (lilce those of the ordinary JBovidce^ gradually 
developed from the epidermis, the skin remaining complete imderneath them.” 
This peculiarity, the furcation of the horns, and the absence of the false 
hoofs” induce the author to raise this genus to the rank of a family. 
^I^os bison. Prof. v. Brandt shows that there is no specific difference between 
specimens from the Caucasus and Lithuania. Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc. 1866, 
xxxix. pp. 252-259. 
Bos frontalis fig. by Sclater, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1866, p. 1, pi. 1. 
