OCR Text |
Show 1877.] ANATOMY OF THE RUMINANTS. 17 different. There, the knowledge of the composition of any non-elementary substance is sufficient for the determination of the name by which it should be designated ; and, vice versd, from the name its composition may be inferred. Why should we not be able to do the same in biology? W e form estimates as to the mutual affinities of genera which can bear the test of criticism as well as any rational chemical formula; is it not just as possible to express them in our nomenclature as do the chemists in theirs ? It is quite conceivable that it should be done; and I have the boldness, on the present occasion, to endeavour to make a step in the direction indicated, taking the Cervidae to illustrate m y method. I should not desire any one to think that the method I am about to suggest is at all a final one; for it only comprehends a single small group of Mammalian animals. Nevertheless, if by it I am able to demonstrate its practical utility, and to develop in others a desire that it should be extended in its scope, there is nothing easier than to expand it. From what has been remarked earlier in this paper, it is evident that there are osteological reasons for separating off the Old-World from the New-World Cervidae. Representing degrees of slightly more than generic importance by Roman capitals, this difference between the two groups may be indicated by the employment of letters separated by some distance in the alphabet. I therefore commence with A in formulating the Old-World species, and with P in those of America. Following the initial capital, I place a small letter, which represents the genus; and the species of each of the latter are indicated by numbers following, raised above the line, as in mathematics when the square, cube, &c. are expressed. When a species, like the Elk, stands by itself, it is not necessary to append the smaller signs. With this amount of explanation, the following Table (III.) will need no further description:-• TARLE III. CERVIDJE. A. Alces machlis. Ca5. R. swinhoii. Ba1* C. elaphus. Ca6. R. mariana. Ba2. C. canadensis. Ca7. R. peronii. Ba3. C. cashmeerianus. Ca8. R. kuhlii. Ba4. C. barbarus. Cas. M. alfredi. Ba5. C. maral. Cb. C. axis. Ba8. C. affinis. Cc. G. porcinus. Bb1. Dama vulgaris. Cd1. Rucervus schomburgkii. Bb2. D. mesopotamica. Cd2. R. duvaucelii. Be1. Pseudaxis sika. Cd3. R. eldi. Be2. P. mantchuricus. D. Elaphurus davidianus. Be3. P. taevanus. Ea1. Cervulus muntjac. Ca1. Rusa aristotelis. Ea2. C. reevesi. Ca2. R. hippelaphus. Eb. Elaphodus cephalophus. Ca3. R. moluccensis. F. Capreolus caprea. Ca4. B. equina. G. Hydropotes inermis. PROC. ZOOL. Soc-1877, No. II. 2 |