Size comparatively large; height at withers about 36 inches. General colour greyish fawn, very finely grizzled with brown. Head and neck clearer fawn. Face-markings generally absent, but a brown patch on the muzzle in some specimens, and on the crown between the ears in others; chin white. Backs of ears pale fawn, not black-tipped; a whitish patch at the base of the ears surrounding the auricular gland, which in young specimens is covered with short velvety-white hairs, and in old animals is entirely naked. Belly white. Fore legs generally black in front, from the knee downwards, fawn externally and white internally; hind legs also commonly marked with black on the lower part of the cannon-bone, otherwise fawn, but on both fore and hind limbs the dark markings are sometimes absent. Tail thick, bushy, reaching halfway to the hocks; fawn above and all round the base, white below and at the tip.
Horns evenly divergent, curved backwards and upwards; never strongly hooked at their tips. At their bases the growing pad, which in other species is absorbed at maturity, remains persistent throughout life as a soft rounded swelling. In length the horns of the adults attain from 14 to 16 inches.
Skull-measurements of an adult male:—basal length 10·3 inches, greatest breadth 4·7, muzzle to orbit 6·3.
Female like the male, but without horns.
Hab. South Africa, as far north as Angola on the west, and Mozambique on the east. (Whether C. bohor is only a smaller northern form of C. arundinum is as yet uncertain.)
The Reedbucks, although closely allied to the Waterbucks and hardly to be distinguished from them in osteological characters, as has been shown by Turner[11], are easily recognized externally by the forward turn of their horns and by the naked glandular spot which is always present to a greater or less extent on the sides of the head beneath the ears. Of the five species of Reedbuck which we treat of in the present work, three were known to the writers of the last century; but they have been much confused together, even by some of the more recent authorities, and it is a difficult task to unravel their complicated synonymy.
We will begin with the finest and largest species of this group, the well-known Reedbuck of the English colonists of the Cape, large specimens of which attain a height at the shoulders of thirty-six inches or more. Like the White-tailed Gnu, the Reedbuck was first described at Amsterdam by Allamand, whose account of it is quoted by Buffon in the sixth volume of his supplement to the ‘Histoire Naturelle,’ published in 1782. Buffon gives rough uncoloured figures of both sexes of this animal, under the name of “Le Ritbok,” which he adopts from Allamand. Upon Buffon’s “Ritbok” Boddaert, in his ‘Elenchus Animalium’ three years later, established his “Antilope arundinum” and thus furnished the first specific name of the present species. In 1787 Schreber issued a copy of Buffon’s figure of the male “Ritbok” with the name Antilope eleotragus upon it—a term which has been frequently adopted by the older authors, but which, as will be seen, is clearly subsequent in date to that of Boddaert. Bechstein, Shaw, and other authors following them have used arundinaceus, the adjectival form, as the specific term of the Reedbuck; but we see no reason for departing from Boddaert’s term of arundinum, which is perfectly good grammar.
In 1815 Afzelius, in the course of his learned commentary ‘De Antilopis speciatim Guineensibus,’ published at Upsala, introduced further complications into the subject by dividing the Reedbuck into two species. One of these he called “Antilope cinerea” based upon the “Ritbok” of Allamand; and the second Antilope isabellina, founded upon a South-African specimen in Thunberg’s collection. So far as we can make out, however, Afzelius shows no valid reason for distinguishing the latter species from the former, and we believe that both these names may be safely referred to Cervicapra arundinum. It should be noted also that in his ‘List of Mammals in the British Museum,’ published in 1843, Gray called the Reedbuck of the Cape Eleotragus reduncus, whereas the specific term reduncus properly appertains to the “Nagor”—the West-African species, of which we shall treat further on. In his subsequent writings, Gray usually reverted to the more correct specific term “arundinaceus” for the present species, but sometimes called it “isabellinus.”
Harris, in his great work on the ‘Game and Wild Animals of Southern Africa,’ published in 1840, figures the “Reitbok,” as he calls it, in his twenty-seventh portrait, along with the Wart-hog, and with an appropriate landscape of reeds and water. In those days the Reedbuck appears to have been common throughout the Colony, and is described by Harris as follows:—“This species resides either in pairs or in very small families along the margins of springs and swampy ground abounding in flags and rushes, or among the sedges that choke the channel of desiccated torrents, which flow only during the winter season. Specimens occurred throughout our route, chiefly to the eastward of the Colony, and in the tropical streams ‘’mongst reeds and willows that o’erhang the flood’; but owing to the shy and secluded habits of the animal, it was not often seen, nor is it in fact anywhere so common as on the western coast, where the attraction of water—a rare element in those barren regions—sometimes causes it to congregate in the open plain.”
Twenty years later, in 1861, Mr. Layard states that the Reedbuck was hardly then to be met with within the Colony! It is, however, as we are informed by Mr. W. L. Sclater, still to be found even up to the present day, though rarely, on some places on the east coast (Bathurst and Komgha), and in considerable numbers in the adjoining countries. Writing in 1881, Mr. Selous tells us that a few were then still to be found in the Transvaal, and that in Matabeleland and Mashonaland, on both slopes of the watershed, it was very common along the banks of the rivers. On the Manica plateau north of the Zambesi, Mr. Selous found Reedbucks particularly abundant, and had seen as many as eight at one time feeding in close proximity one to another. He remarks, however, that they are animals that go in pairs, and in this particular differ altogether from the various Waterbucks, which consort together in herds of not more than one male to ten females.