OCR Text |
Show 1875.] PROF. W. H. FLOWER ON THE MUSK-DEER. 179 Any system of classification which ignores these facts cannot pretend to be founded upon the teaching of nature. There has scarcely been a more troublesome and obdurate error in zoology than that which, based on the observation of certain comparatively unimportant external characters, placed the Tragulina and Moschus in one and the same genus*. It has been troublesome not only as preventing a just conception of the relations of existing Artiodactyles, but also in causing great confusion and hindrance in palaeontological researches among the allied forms ; and most obdurate, inasmuch as all that has been recently done in advancing our knowledge of both groups has not succeeded in eradicating it, not only from nearly every one of our zoological text-books, either British or continental, but even from works of the highest scientific pretensions. In the admirable memoir of Adolphe Milne-Edwards already referred to, which contains so much solid information about the Musk-Deer and the Tragulina, and in which the distinctions between them are so clearly pointed out, the influence of the old traditions prevailed; and in his final revision of the order of Ruminants (p. 118) the Tragulidee constitute only one of the families of the suborder Ungnligrada, tbe Moschida, Cervida, Antilopida, Caprida, Bovida, and Girafida (so far more closely allied to one another) being the others, while the Camels are separated as a distinct suborder, Phalangigrada. In a later work, however, published by the same eminent zoologist in conjunction with his illustrious father (c Recherches pour servir a, l'histoire naturelle des Mammiferes,' 1868), in the preliminary sketch of the classification of the Mammals, a complete reformation is made, Moschus being included among the Pecora or ordinary Ruminants, while the " Chevrotainsproprement dits" constitute an order apart, called " Tragulides," placed between tbe former and the " Pachydermes bisulques." Whether or not we give the term "order" to these groupsf matters less than that we recognize their natural character, and feel satisfied that the wide separation thus made between animals formerly thought to be so closely allied is justified by our increased knowledge of their structure. I will therefore endeavour, more fully than has hitherto been done, to give the reasons upon which this view is based, which will be the first step necessary for defining the position of Moschus. * Moschus and Tragulus, previously used as synonyms, were first separated by Dr. J. E. Gray, in 1836 (P. Z. S. vol. iv. p. 63), as sections or subgenera of the genus Moschus; but the importance of their distinguishing characters was not recognized, as Memminna was made another section of equal rank. Pucheran first proposed to place Tragulus in a family apart from Moschus, chiefly on account of the different structure of the stomach (" Monographie des especes du genre Cerf," Compt. Rend, de l'Acad. des Sciences, 1849, t xxix. p. 773, and Archives du Museum, 1852, t. vi. p. 285). t I think myself that this application of the term is hardly consistent with its general use among the other Mammalia, and that "suborder" would be preferable. |