1901.] 
W. Theobald —Karshapana Coinage. 
39 
A few remarks will not be out of place here on some erroneous 
identifications of Indian animals made by previous writers, through 
unfamiliarity with Zoology and its technicalities ; for example, an ani¬ 
mal possessed of a long tail and crescentic, unbranched horns, cannot 
by any Zoologist be correctly described as a ‘Deer.’ This very error 
is made in J. As. Soc. Ben. for 1838, page 1051, PI. XXXII, figs. 2, 
3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, which all represent specimens of silver and copper 
coins of Amoglia-bhuti. On the obverse of these coins an animal is seen 
turned to the right. In the letter press this animal is termed a ‘ deer ’ 
and this error has been religiously perpetuated down to the present 
day. 
In “ The Coins of Ancient India ” two excellent figures are given 
of two very perfect silver coins, the animal being termed a ‘ Deer ’ on 
p. 72. As these plates are photographs it is as well to consider them 
carefully, as they are to all intents and purposes as accurate for refer¬ 
ring to, as the coins themselves. In both figures the animal displays a 
long bushy tail, and a pair of unbranched crescent-shaped horns, both 
of which characters absolutely prohibit its being considered a ‘ deer ’ 
whilst the second, fig. (No. 2), displays the rounded forehead and an 
exaggerated attempt to represent the moist ‘ muffle ’ which indicates 
pretty clearly that the animal is a buffalo. In 1841 Professor Wilson 
described the animal as a Stag in Ariana Antiqua, p. 415. In 1865 Mr. 
Thomas described the animal as a sacred deer, with “ curiously curved 
horns and a “ bushy tail” in the J. As. Soc. Ben., p. 65. In 1875 Babu 
Rajendralala Mitra described the animal as a “ curiously antlered 
deer ” in J. As. Soc. Ben., p. 82, despite the fact that nothing approach¬ 
ing an ‘ antler ’ is seen about the animal, and lastly Mr. Rodgers des¬ 
cribes the animal as a ‘ deer ’ in his Catalogue of the Coins of the Indian 
Museum, p. 9. 
Of course all this unanimity of error arose from not one of the above 
writers possessing any clear notions of the technical points which separate 
the Cervine from the Bubaline section of Ruminants, or those possess¬ 
ing deciduous horns from those whose horns are carried on a bony core. 
Another Zoological error Mr. Thomas made, was in confounding the 
buffalo, with the elegant little ‘ Chikara ’ (Gazella bennettii) or ‘ ravine 
deer ’ as it is erroneously named by Anglo-Indians, (it being a Gazelle 
and no deer), when he described the helmet of the King (Huvishka) 
as guarded by buffalos’ horns: see Jainism, PI. II, fig. 16. This pecu¬ 
liar head-dress has not been figured either by Sir A. Cunningham, or 
in the British Museum 1 Catalogue of Coins of the Scythic Kings. 
1 Note. —With respect to the note to page 145, some doubt may, I think, be 
entertained, whether the coin quoted to support the contention of the object in the 
