68 
ZOOLOGY. 
In size, the animal I was then observing considerably exceeded tbe only two specimens existing 
in collections, (both of which are immature,) being about that of the Virginian deer of the 
eastern States. I had been watching her for, perhaps, ten minutes, when I saw our guide, 
Bartee, approaching t-lie prairie from the opposite side, with his rifle on his shoulder, and quite 
unconscious of the proximity of the game for which he had been searching. My motions to at¬ 
tract his attention alarmed the deer, and with a buck, which had been all the while still nearer 
me, she ran across the prarie, her broad white tail erect and swinging, and disappeared in the 
forest. The buck was larger than the doe, of the same color, with much curved, many pronged 
horns, and, like her, with a white tail, which did not seem disproportionately long. 
We saw no more of the white-tailed deer. Among the many pairs of antlers of animals killed 
by the Indians which we noticed in the Des Chutes basin there were some twice forked horns, 
which I considered to be those of the mule deer, and others, more curved and many pronged, 
closely resembling horns of C. virginianus, which we supposed to be those of G. leucurus. 
These facts, though not perfectly conclusive as to the existence or otherwise of such a species 
as C. leucurus. seem to indicate that the Virginian deer inhabits the western slope of the Rocky 
mountains with the mule deer, as they together inhabit the eastern slope of the same range, 
either as distinct from, or identical with, G. leucurus. 
I will leave the discussion of this subject to others, to whom it more properly belongs, only 
suggesting that: 
1st. C. leucurus , Douglas, is not now the most common species on the Willamette or 
Cowlitz rivers, as of those killed there by our party, or during our stay in that region, all were 
G. Leioisii, Peale, the Columbian black-tailed deer, and we were told that no other species was 
found there 
2d. Richardson never saw C. vh'ginianus in the United States ; and at the north, where he 
locates G. leucurus , now G. virginianus is found in abundance, and G. leucurus is unknown. 
We may, therefore, suspect that he has confounded them. 
3d. Lewis and Clark considered the white-tailed deer of the west as a variety of C. virginianus. 
4th. The two animals upon which Audubon’s description is based are both young and, of 
necessity, small, and are in dark, winter pelage. The diagnostic characters which he gives 
are, small size, dark color above, light below, small size of gland of leg, tuft of white hair 
between legs, &c.; every character being presented by the young of the Virginian deer in their 
winter coat. 
CERVUS MACROTIS, Say. 
Mule Deer* 
Cervus macrotis, Sat, Narr. of Long’s Exped. IT, 1823, 88. 
Baied, Gen. Rep Mamms. 1857, 656. 
Sp. Ch.—L arger than C. virginianus. Horns doubly dichotomous, the forks nearly equal. Ears nearly as long as the tail. 
Gland of hind leg half as long as the distance between the articulating surfaces of the bone. 
llair in winter, ashy brown with light grey tips and annulations. Beneath, like the back, except about axillae and 
groin. Entire rump with basal two-thirds of tail all round white. The tail is cylindrical, a little longer than the ears, very 
slender, naked beneath, except at the end, which is a black tuft. 
When exploring the course of the Des Chutes river, Oregon Territory, in September, 1855, 
we followed up the main fork westwardly, to its source in the Cascade mountains. On this 
excursion we first met with the <£ mule deer.” As we were, one morning, winding along the 
river bank, we saw a doe some distance before us go down to the water to drink. Our party 
stopped, while Bartee crept forward to get a shot. The deer drank hastily and started directly 
back up the hill by the path she had descended; fearing to lose sight of her, Bartee stopped her 
