THE
BOOK OF ANTELOPES.

BY

PHILIP LUTLEY SCLATER, M.A., Ph.D., F.R.S.,

SECRETARY TO THE ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON,

AND

OLDFIELD THOMAS, F.Z.S., F.R.G.S.,

ASSISTANT IN THE ZOOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

IN FOUR VOLUMES (1894–1900).

VOL. III.

LONDON:
R. H. PORTER, 7 PRINCES STREET, CAVENDISH SQUARE, W.
1897–1898.

ALERE FLAMMAM.

PRINTED BY TAYLOR AND FRANCIS,
RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET.

CONTENTS.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
IN THE TEXT.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES.

VOL. III.

Subfamily V. ANTILOPINÆ.

General Characters.—Size medium or small. Muzzle hairy. Anteorbital glands variable, large in some genera, absent in others. Tail generally short. Mammæ 2 (4 in Saiga).

Skull usually with supraorbital pits, lachrymal vacuities, and anteorbital fossæ. Molars tall and narrow.

Horns present in the male only, except in Antidorcas and in most of the species of Gazella.

Range of Subfamily. South-eastern Europe, Western and Central Asia, Peninsula of India, and the whole of Africa.

The greater part of this subfamily consists of the Gazelles and their allies, the Saiga, Chiru, Springbuck, Gerenuk, and Dibatag; and with these, by common consent, are included the Black-buck, the typical form of the whole group of Antelopes, and the Pallahs. We have also thought that the anomalous little Antelope known as the Beira would best be placed in this subfamily, near the Gazelles, in spite of the superficial resemblance it bears to certain members of the subfamily Neotraginæ.

The present subfamily consists therefore of nine genera, which may be arranged as follows:—

• A. Horns spirally twisted  1. Antilope.
• B. Horns curved or straight, not twisted.
• a. False hoofs absent  2. Æpyceros.
• b. False hoofs present.
• a¹. Horns medium or long, curved.
• a². Muzzle swollen or elongated.
• a³. Horns medium, lyrate, whitish  3. Saiga.
• b³. Horns long, slightly curved, black  4. Pantholops.
• b². Muzzle slender, normal.
• a³. Neck normal.
• a⁴. Horns convex forwards for three-fourths their length.
• a⁵. Back with a central white streak. Lower premolars 2.  5. Antidorcas.
• b⁵. Back normal. Lower premolars 3  6. Gazella.
• b⁴. Horns concave forwards, except just at their base.  7. Ammodorcas.
• b³. Neck much elongated. Horns as in Gazella.  8. Lithocranius.
• b¹. Horns short, quite straight  9. Dorcotragus.

Genus I. ANTILOPE.

Size medium. Muzzle hairy. A large anteorbital gland present. Tail short, compressed. Mammæ 2. Accessory hoofs present. Glands in all the feet and in the groin.

Skull with deep pits between the orbits, very small or no lachrymal vacuities, and large anteorbital fossæ. Molars tall and narrow.

Horns long, placed close together, widely divergent, cylindrical, spirally twisted, closely ringed throughout. Female normally hornless.

Range of the Genus. Peninsula of India.

One species only is known.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. XLVII.

J. Smit, del. & lith.

Hanhart imp.

The Black-buck

ANTILOPE CERVICAPRA.

Published by R. H. Porter.

76. THE BLACK-BUCK.
ANTILOPE CERVICAPRA (Linn.).
[PLATE XLVII.]

Gazella africana—The Antelope, Ray, Quadr. p. 79 (1693).

Capra cervicapra, Linn. Syst. Nat. (10) i. p. 69 (1758), (12) i. p. 96 (1766).

Antilope cervicapra, Pall. Misc. Zool. p. 9 (1766); id. Spic. Zool. i. p. 18 (1767), xii. p. 19 (1777); Erxl. Syst. R. A. p. 283 (1777); Zimm. Spec. Zool. Geog. p. 542 (1779); id. Geogr. Gesch. ii. p. 116 (1780); Gatt. Brev. Zool. i. p. 81 (1780); Schreb. Säug. pl. cclxviii. (1785); Bodd. Elench. Anim. p. 142 (1785); Gmel. Linn. S. N. i. p. 192 (1788); Kerr, Linn. An. K. p. 319 (1792); Donnd. Zool. Beitr. i. p. 644 (1792); Lath. & Dav. Faunula Indica, p. 4 (1795); Link, Beytr. Nat. ii. p. 90 (1795); G. Cuv. Tabl. Élém. p. 164 (1798); Bechst. Syst. Uebers. vierf. Th. ii. p. 644 (1800); Shaw, Gen. Zool. ii. pt. 2, p. 336 (1801); Turt. Linn. Syst. Nat. i. p. 116 (1802); Desm. N. Diet. d’H. N. (1) xxiv. Tabl. p. 33 (1804); G. Cuv. Dict. Sci. Nat. ii. p. 235 (1804); Tied. Zool. i. p. 410 (1808); Licht. Mag. nat. Freund. vi. p. 172 (1814); G. Fisch. Zoogn. iii. p. 437 (1814); Afz. N. Act. Ups. vii. p. 220 (1815); Desm. N. Dict. d’H. N. (2) ii. p. 180 (1816); G. Cuv. R. A. i. p. 261 (1817); Goldf. Schr. Säug. v. p. 1214 (1818); Schinz, Cuv. Thierr. i. p. 389 (1821); Desm. Mamm. ii. p. 451 (1822); Desmoul. Dict. Class. d’H. N. i. p. 443 (1822); H. Sm. Griff. An. K. iv. p. 231, v. p. 337 (1827); Less. Man. Mamm. p. 370 (1827); J. B. Fisch. Syn. Mamm. p. 457 (1829); Gray & Hardw. Ill. Ind. Zool. i. pls. xii. & xiii. (1832); Benn. P. Z. S. 1836, p. 34; Og. P.Z. S. 1836, p. 137; Less. Compl. Buff. x. p. 289 (1836); Oken, Allg. Nat. vii. p. 1377 (1838); Elliot, Madr. Journ. x. p. 222 (1839); Laurill. Dict. Univ. d’H. N. i. p. 620 (1839); Gerv. Dict. Sci. Nat. i. p. 260 (1840); Hodgs. J. A. S. B. x. p. 913 (1841); Less. N. Tabl. R. A., Mamm. p. 175 (1842); Forst. Descr. Anim. p. 379 (1844); Wagn. Schr. Säug. Suppl. iv. p. 416 (1844), v. p. 409 (1855); Schinz, Syn. Mamm. ii. p. 408 (1845); Hutton, J. A. S. B. xv. p. 150 (1846); Sund. Pecora, K. Vet.-Ak. Handl. 1845, p. 270 (1847); id. Hornsch. Transl. Arch. Skand. Beitr. ii. p. 266; Reprint, p. 86 (1848); Schinz, Mon. Ant. p. 10, pl. ix. (1848); Temm. Esq. Zool. Guin. p. 190 (1853); Gieb. Säug. p. 312 (1853); Kinloch, Large Game Shooting in Tibet, p. 59 (1869) (pl., head); Blanf. J. A. S. B. xliv. pt. 2, p. 19 (1875); Ball, P. A. S. B. 1877, p. 171; Brehm, Thierl. iii. p. 198 (1880); Scl. List Anim. Z. S. (8) p. 144 (1883), (9) p. 158 (1896); Flow. & Gars. Cat. Coll. Surg. ii. p. 266 (1884); Kinloch, Large Game Shooting, 1885, p. 112, 1892, p. 153, pl. (head); Jent. Cat. Ost. Leyd. Mus. (M. P.-B. ix.) p. 137 (1889); W. Scl. Cat. Mamm. Calc. Mus. ii. p. 162 (1891); Blanf. Mamm. Brit. Ind. p. 521 (1891); Flow. & Lyd. Mamm. p. 340 (1891); Ward, Horn Meas. (1) p. 95 (1892), (2) p. 139 (1896); Jent. Cat. Mamm. Leyd. Mus. (M. P.-B. xi.) p. 169 (1892); Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 152 (1893).

Cerophorus (Antilope) cervicapra, Blainv. Bull. Soc. Philom. 1816, p. 75.

Strepsiceros cervicapra, Rüpp. Verz. Senck. Mus. p. 39 (1842).

Antilope rupicapra, Müll. Natursyst. Supp. p. 56 (1776) (ex l’Antilope, Buff. Hist. Nat. xii. p. 273, pls. xxxv. & xxxvi. 1764).

Cemas strepsiceros, Oken, Lehrb. Nat. p. 732 (1816).

Antilope, F. Cuv. H. N. Mamm. (fol.) iii. livr. xliii. (♂) & xliv. (♀) (1824).

“Antilope bilineata, Linn. MS.,” Gray & Hardw. Ill. Ind. Zool., lettering to pl. xii. (1832) (juv.).

Cervicapra bezoartica, Gray, List Mamm. B. M. p. 159 (1843); id. Ann. Mag. N. H. (1) xviii. p. 231 (1846); id. Cat. Mamm. Nepal, Hodgson Coll. (1) p. 26 (1846), (2) p. 13 (1863); id. List Ost. B. M. p. 56 (1847); id. Knowsl. Men. p. 6 (1850); Horsf. Cat. Mamm. E. I. C. p. 167 (1851); Gerr. Cat. Bones Mamm. B. M. p. 234 (1862); Fitz. SB. Wien, lix. 1, p. 162 (1869).

Antilope bezoartica, Gray, P. Z. S. 1850, p. 117; id. Cat. Ung. B. M. p. 66 (1852); Blyth, Cat. Mamm. As. Soc. p. 171 (1863); Jerdon, Mamm. Ind. p. 275 (1867); Blanf. J. A. S. B. xxxvi. pt. 2, p. 196 (1867); Macmaster, Notes on Jerdon, pp. 134 & 258 (1870); Stol. J. A. S. B. xli. pt. 2, p. 229 (1872); Gray, Cat. Rum. B. M. p. 40 (1872); id. Hand-l. Rum. B. M. p. 109 (1873); Pollok, Sport in Brit. Burmah, p. 50 (1879); Sterndale, Mamm. Ind. p. 472 (1884); Percy, Badminton Big Game Shooting, ii. p. 345 (1894).

Vernacular Names:—Ena ♂, Harina and Mirga, in Sanscrit; Haran, Harna ♂, Harni ♀, Kalwit ♀, Mrig, in Hindostani; Kala ♂, Goria ♀, in Tirhoot; Kalsar ♂, Baoti ♀, in Behar; Bureta in Bhagalpur; Barant or Sasin in Nepal; Alali ♂, Gandoli ♀, in Baori; Badu in Ho Kol; Bamani-haran in Uria and Mahratta; Phandayat in Mahratta; Kutsar in Korku; Veli-man in Tamil; Irri ♂, Ledi and Jinka in Telugu; Chigri and Húlé-kara in Canarese (Blanford).

Height of male at withers about 30 inches. General colour in the same sex brown, gradually darkening with age to deep shining black. Muzzle and chin, an area round the eyes, and the whole of ears white. Back of neck, especially in the black individuals, yellowish. Upper part of flanks with an indistinct narrow whitish line running along them, most conspicuous in the young. Chest, belly, and inner sides of limbs pure white; outer sides of the latter brown. Tail short, its upperside fawn or brown, beneath white; its end with an indistinct blackish tuft.

Female brownish fawn wherever the male is black, and with the colour-contrasts nowhere so conspicuous. Back of ears and nape of neck also fawn. Horns absent, except in abnormal cases (see p. 14).

Skull as described above. The dimensions of a skull of a male are:—Basal length 8·3 inches, greatest breadth 4·0, muzzle to orbit 4·9.

Hab. India, from the base of the Himalayas to Cape Comorin, and from the Punjab to Lower Assam; but not found in Ceylon or to the east of the Bay of Bengal.

The Indian Antelope or Black-buck, as the male is universally called by sportsmen, is usually associated with the Gazelles, and we retain it in this position, although it deviates from all the other members of the subfamily in having its horns spirally twisted somewhat after the manner of the Tragelaphinæ. It likewise differs from the rest of the group as regards the strong contrast of colour between the sexes, although this is of course a comparatively trifling character.

This Antelope, although strictly confined to India south of the Himalayas, has been more or less known in Europe for a long period, probably since the invasion of India by Alexander the Great. It has been even conjectured that the twisted horn of the fabled Unicorn of mediæval writers may have been originally based upon single horns of the present animal, though other authorities are inclined to refer the Unicorn’s horn to the Narwhal. This, however, is rather an antiquarian than a zoological question.

In the two last and most complete editions of the ‘Systema Naturæ’ Linnæus based his Capra cervicapra upon the descriptions of several of his predecessors (Gesner, Aldrovandus, Ray, and Brisson), which certainly refer to the present species, and we may therefore safely adopt cervicapra for it as its specific term. The name bezoartica of Linnæus, which has been employed in its place by some authorities, refers to quite a different animal, probably to one of the wild goats, but certainly not to the Indian Antelope.

As regards the generic appellation of the present animal, we have already explained our reasons for following the general practice of the best modern authors in considering the Capra cervicapra of Linnæus to be the type of the genus Antilope, although Pallas, who founded the genus, did not give it precedence in his list of species. But the fact is that Pallas in his day never realized the importance attached in modern times to the exact designation of the types of genera, and had probably no intentions in the matter. The correct scientific name of the Black-buck is therefore, in our opinion, Antilope cervicapra.

The authors immediately subsequent to Linnæus, whose numerous references we quote in our synonymy, added little or nothing to our knowledge of the Indian Antelope. Shaw and other writers of the same date continued the story (which originally arose from its being confounded with the Addax) of its being met with in Africa as well as India—a fallacy which appears to have been first exposed by Lichtenstein in his excellent article on the genus Antilope, published in 1814. But accurate information on this Antelope and its exact range and habits was only obtained when the fauna of the Indian Peninsula came to be investigated by those whom the increase of English influence caused to be resident in that country.

After General Hardwicke, the late Sir Walter Elliot was among the first of the British residents in India who turned his special attention to the zoology of British India. In 1839 he published an excellent article upon the mammals of the Southern Mahratta country. Here, he tells us, the Indian Antelope “frequents the plains in herds of from twenty to thirty, each of which contains only one buck of mature age, the others being young ones.” In some cases the herds are so large that one buck has fifty or sixty does in its company, while the younger bucks, driven away by the old ones, wander about in separate herds, which sometimes contain as many as thirty individuals of different ages.

Jerdon, in his ‘Mammals of India,’ published in 1867, following Gray, calls the Indian Antelope Antilope bezoartica, but gives us a good account of it. It is found, he says, throughout India in suitable localities, but is not met with elsewhere. “It is rare in Bengal, a few only extending into Purneah and Dinagepore, north of the Ganges; and it does not occur in the richly wooded Malabar coast. It is abundant in the Deccan, in parts of the Doab between the Jumna and Ganges, also in Hurriana, Rajpootana, and the neighbouring districts. It is found in the Punjab, but does not cross the Indus.”

McMaster, in his ‘Notes on Jerdon’s Mammals,’ and Sterndale, in his ‘Natural History of the Mammalia of India and Ceylon,’ besides numerous other writers in the ‘Bengal Sporting Magazine’ and other periodicals, have published good field-notes upon the Black-buck, which is perhaps the most favourite object of pursuit of the sportsman in the plains of India. But one of the best summaries of all these observations is that put together by General Kinloch in his excellent work on ‘Large Game Shooting in Thibet, the Himalayas, Northern and Central India,’ from the third edition of which, published in 1892, we venture to quote the following extracts:—

“The Indian Antelope, the male of which is universally known among sportsmen as the ‘Black Buck,’ is generally distributed throughout India, being found from the foot of the Himalayas to the extreme south of the mainland, and from Eastern Bengal to the River Jhílam. There are, however, large tracts of country where it is not found, and it is essentially an inhabitant of the open cultivated plains, avoiding equally hills and dense jungles. The localities in which I know it to be most abundant are the desert near Ferózpúr, in the Hissár District, and in the neighbourhood of Álígarh. The male is one of the most graceful and beautiful animals in creation, combining symmetry of form and brilliancy of coloring with marvellous speed and elasticity of movement. He stands about thirty-two inches at the shoulder, and when arrived at maturity the upper parts are of a deep glossy black, with the exception of a light chestnut-colored patch at the back of the neck, and some markings of the same color about the face. The lower parts and the inside of the limbs are snowy white, and the line between the black and white is most clearly defined. The hair is short and glossy, and the skin makes a very pretty mat. The horns are remarkably handsome, being spiral and annulated nearly to their tips. They vary considerably in length, in degree of spirality, in the number and prominence of rings, and in the angle at which they diverge. In Southern India they are said rarely to attain a greater length than twenty inches, but in the Panjáb they have been found very much longer. I have seen two pairs of twenty-seven inches, and have heard of horns over twenty-eight in length. Young bucks are of a light fawn color, their coats gradually becoming darker with age, although I have seen full-grown buck with long horns which had hardly a black hair. The doe is of a light fawn above and white beneath, with a light-colored line along the side; she is not furnished with horns, except in very rare instances. When horns do appear they are slender and much curved, bearing no resemblance to those of the buck. Antelopes delight in extensive open plains where there are alternate wide tracts of cultivation and waste land, repairing as a rule to the fields for food, and resting when they can on bare and sandy soil. During the rainy season, however, they are fond of concealing themselves among high-standing crops, and only come out in the mornings and evenings. Black Buck are very pugnacious, and sometimes fight so desperately that they will allow a person to walk close up to them without observing him. Many have their horns broken in their combats, and I have seen one both of whose horns were broken off within three inches of the head. Antelopes are usually found in considerable herds, varying in numbers from ten or a dozen to a couple of hundred. A buck and one doe, or a buck and a couple of does, may, however, be frequently met with; and vast herds of many thousands have occasionally been seen. When in large numbers they of course do much damage to the crops, and it is with difficulty that the natives drive them away. It is a beautiful sight when a herd of Antelopes are first alarmed; as soon as they have made up their minds that safety is only to be found in flight, first one, then another bounds into the air to a surprising height, just touching the earth, and again springing upwards, until the whole herd are in motion. So light are their movements that they seem as if they were suspended on wires. These bounds are only continued for a few strides, after which the Antelopes generally settle down into a regular gallop. The speed of the Black Buck is wonderful, and it is seldom that greyhounds can pull down an unwounded one; but I knew one dog that caught several, both bucks and does, on fair ground. Antelopes will go away when very hard hit, and a wounded one will often give a capital run, if ridden after with spear or knife; the latter is nearly as good as the former, for the buck runs so game, that he will not, as a rule, give a chance of spearing him until he is so completely exhausted that he drops with fatigue, when one may dismount and cut his throat. The sportsman can choose between riding down or coursing his wounded Antelope; but either a good horse or a brace of greyhounds should always be in readiness, or the best shot will have the mortification of seeing maimed animals escape to die a lingering death.”

The chase of the Black-buck by the Cheetah (Cynælurus jubatus) is a favourite sport of the native Princes and Nobles of India. General Kinloch, in the work we have just quoted, describes one of these chases, in which he took part, as follows:—

“Early one morning at the beginning of June, M. (a brother Officer) and I rode out with the Chítá cart, and had not proceeded very far across the fields, which were then almost destitute of vegetation, when some Black Buck were discovered in the distance. M. then took his seat beside the keeper of the cart, while I rode alongside, taking care to keep the cart between me and the Antelope. The herd had evidently been hunted before, and in spite of careful manœuvring would never allow us to approach within a hundred and fifty yards, which the keeper considered too great a distance for a successful slip. Several other antelope were followed with a similar result, but at last a herd that were grazing in a very rough field permitted the bullocks to trot up to within a hundred yards. The Chítá was now unhooded, and on catching sight of the game he sprang lightly from the cart, but instead of at once giving chase, he walked quietly towards the Antelope, which, being now alarmed, were rapidly increasing their distance. I began to think that he had no intention of pursuing, and the Antelope were nearly two hundred yards off, when he gradually increased his speed, and after a few strides bounded after them with such amazing velocity that in a few seconds he was in the middle of the now flying herd. Passing several small ones, he singled out one of the finest buck, and in less time than it takes to describe it buck and Chítá rolled over in a cloud of dust. The chase had not extended much over three hundred yards. Galloping to the spot, I found the buck lying on his back, while the Chítá crouched quietly by him with his fangs buried in the throat. The keeper quickly came up, terminated the buck’s existence with his knife, and catching the blood in a wooden ladle, presented it to the Chítá, who lapped it up with relish. A haunch was then cut off, and the Chítá seizing it bounded back into his cart, where he proceeded to devour it at his leisure. The buck was a fine one, with twenty-three inch horns.”

Excellent accounts of the distribution and habits of the Indian Antelope have also been lately published in Dr. Stanford’s ‘Mammals of British India,’ and in the second volume of ‘Big Game Shooting’ in the Badminton Library. In the latter we find described the following curious method of getting within close range of the Black-buck as practised in Central India:—

“A trained Black-buck and doe are taken out, each having a light cord about ten yards long attached to it, and the pair are led by an attendant, a light screen about three feet square made of grass and leaves with a small hole in the centre being carried by the shikari. The whole party moves under cover of a third man on horseback to within about three hundred yards of a herd of antelopes. The screen is then planted on a spot commanding a good view; the men on foot crouch behind it, and the horseman rides slowly off on the flank. The two tame Antelopes are then let out to the full extent of their lines on one side of the screen, and begin playing round one another. The master buck of the herd, seeing an impertinent intruder on his ground, trots out at once to do battle for the doe, but the screen puzzles him, so before coming close he generally circles round to try and see behind it. As he moves, the screen is shifted round, the men scrambling round on hands and knees behind it, and if there are two Englishmen bursting with suppressed laughter in addition to the two natives, all scuffling round as the screen moves and trying to keep their legs out of sight, the business is most comical. Directly the wild buck stops, the screen and the men behind it must remain motionless. Having failed to discover what is behind the screen, the buck, though he is still suspicious, feels that he must try to capture that enticing doe, but decides on having a look on the other side of the screen first, so back he gallops to the other flank, and the scrambling process is repeated. Gradually he comes within range, the rifle is poked through the hole in the screen and he gets his quietus. After this the tame Antelopes are given a handful of corn, and the party sets out to look for another herd. The tame buck employed in this manœuvre should be a brown one, as if an old powerful-looking black one is used the wild buck will often decline the contest.”

The Indian Antelope bears captivity easily, and specimens of it are to be seen in all the Zoological Gardens of Europe, in some of which it has bred and multiplied very successfully. In other places it has not done so well, apparently requiring a light soil and a considerable amount of protection from the inclemencies of a northern climate.

In the celebrated Menagerie at Knowsley fifty years ago this Antelope is stated by Gray to have bred but once at the time he was writing of it (1846). But shortly afterwards the herd of this animal in Lord Derby’s possession appears to have increased very rapidly. When the Menagerie was dispersed by auction after the Earl’s death in 1851 we find that four males and four females of this Antelope were entered in the sale-list, all described as having been bred at Knowsley. These passed into the possession of the late Viscount Hill, of Hawkstone, who at that epoch shared Lord Derby’s tastes in his love for keeping living animals.

So far as we can tell from an inspection of the Zoological Society’s records, the first specimens of the Black-buck received by the Society were brought home by Col. Sykes (a well-known authority on Indian zoology) from Bombay in 1831. In the ‘Proceedings’ of the Society for 1836 Mr. E. T. Bennett, then Secretary of the Society, published some interesting remarks on this herd, especially referring to the vexed question of the use of the lachrymal sinus in Antelopes, which, from consideration of the relative development of it in the several specimens then in the Society’s Gardens, he showed was in all probability subservient to sexual purposes.

As will be seen by reference to the nine published editions of the ‘Lists of Animals in the Society’s Collection,’ numerous specimens of the Black-buck have been acquired by the Society since that date, but, probably on account of the small free space assigned to them, little or no success has been met with in breeding this beautiful species in the Regent’s Park. On the other hand, at the Jardin d’Acclimatation at Paris and in other places under a climate more genial than our own, where large paddocks can be assigned to it, the Black-buck frequently reproduces in captivity and flourishes exceedingly.

No figures of the Black-buck having been drawn under the late Sir Victor Brooke’s directions, our illustrations of this beautiful Antelope (Plate XLVII.) have been taken by Mr. Smit from two mounted specimens in the British Museum of Natural History, the male of which, from Gwalior, was presented by Mr. C. Maries, of the Gwalior Museum.

Fig. 45.

Horns of Black-buck, ♂. (In the Collection of Mr. A. O. Hume.)

Fig. 46.

Abnormal horns of female Indian Antelope.
(In the collection of Mr. A. O. Hume.)

The National Collection possesses other examples of this Antelope, besides a fine series of heads and horns, mostly from Rajpootana and the Punjáb, belonging to the splendid collection of these objects presented to the British Museum by Mr. A. O. Hume, C.B. In order to show the large dimensions to which the horns of the adult male Black-buck attain in Rajpootana and Hurriana we give a drawing (fig. 45) of a beautiful pair still in the possession of Mr. Hume, which attained a length of no less than 28¼ inches measured in a straight line. On referring to the long list of the dimensions of the horns of this Antelope published in Mr. Rowland Ward’s ‘Records of Big Game,’ it will be found that only one pair of greater length than the horns which we now figure have been hitherto recorded. We also give (fig. 46) a figure of the skull and abnormal horns of a female of this Antelope in Mr. Hume’s Collection.

August, 1897.

Genus II. ÆPYCEROS.

Size large. No anteorbital glands. Tail fairly long. False hoofs absent. Hind feet with glandular tufts of hair placed shortly above the hoofs.

Skull without supraorbital pits or anteorbital fossæ; lachrymal vacuities small.

Horns of male medium or rather long, broadly lyrate, half-ringed, slightly compressed. Female hornless.

Range of the Genus. Southern Africa, northwards to Angola on the west, and to the Southern Soudan on the east.

Of this genus we are at present prepared to recognize only two species—the Common Pallah of Southern and Eastern Africa (Æ. melampus) and that of Angola (Æ. petersi). The latter may be readily distinguished from the ordinary form by having a prominent blackish mark running down the upper surface of the muzzle.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. XLVIII

Wolf del, J. Smit lith

Hanhart imp.

The Pallah

ÆPYCEROS MELAMPUS.

Published by R. H. Porter.

77. THE PALLAH.
ÆPYCEROS MELAMPUS (Licht.).
[PLATE XLVIII.]

Pallah, Daniell, African Scenery, no. 9 (1812).

Antilope melampus, Licht. Reise, ii. p. 544, pl. iv. (1812); id. Mag. nat. Freund. vi. p. 167 (1814); Goldf. Schr. Säug. v. p. 1224, pl. cclxxiv. (1818); Schinz, Cuv. Thierr. i. p. 388 (1821); Desm. Mamm. ii. p. 456 (1822); Burch. Trav. ii. p. 301 (1824); id. List Mamm. pres. to B. M. p. 5 (1825) (Latakoo); H. Sm. Griff. An. K. iv. p. 219, v. p. 334 (1827); Less. Man. Mamm. p. 374 (1827); J. B. Fisch. Syn. Mamm. p. 462 (1829); Smuts, En. Mamm. Cap. p. 74 (1832); A. Sm. S. Afr. Quart. J. ii. p. 209 (1834); Laurill. Dict. Univ. d’H. N. i. p. 616 (1839); Harr. Wild Anim. S. Afr. p. 78, pl. xv. (1840); Gerv. Dict. Sci. Nat. i. p. 261 (1840); Jard. Nat. Misc. vi. p. 217, pl. xxix. (1842); Less. N. Tabl. R. A., Mamm. p. 176 (1842); Gray, List Mamm. B. M. p. 162 (1843); Wagn. Schr. Säug. Suppl. iv. p. 417 (1844), v. p. 409 (1855); Schinz, Syn. Mamm. ii. p. 405 (1845); Gray, Ann. Mag. N. H. (1) xviii. p. 231 (1846); id. List Ost. B. M. p. 56 (1847); Schinz, Mon. Antil. p. 7, pl. vi. (1848); Gray, Knowsl. Men. p. 6 (1850); Peters, Säug. Mossamb. p. 190 (1852) (Zambezi); Temm. Esq. Zool. Guin. p. 190 (1853); Gieb. Säug. p. 313 (1853); Drumm. Large Game S. Afr. p. 426 (1875); Brehm, Thierl. iii. p. 203 (1880); Huet, Bull. Soc. Acclim. (4) iv. p. 477 (1887).

Æpyceros melampus, Sund. Pecora, K. Vet.-Ak. Handl. 1845, p. 271 (1847); id. Hornschuch’s Transl., Arch. Skand. Beitr. ii. p. 267; Reprint, p. 87 (1848); Gray, P. Z. S. 1850, p. 116; id. Cat. Ung. B. M. p. 65 (1852); Gerr. Cat. Bones Mamm. B. M. p. 234 (1862); Blyth, Cat. Mamm. Mus. As. Soc. p. 171 (1863); Scl. P. Z. S. 1864, p. 101 (Uzaramo); Kirk, P. Z. S. 1864, p. 656 (Zambesia); Hengl. & Fitz. SB. Ak. Wien, liv. pt. 1, p. 590 (1866); Fitz. SB. Ak. Wien, lix. pt. 1, p. 157 (1869); Gray, Cat. Rum. B. M. p. 42 (1872); id. Hand-l. Rum. B. M. p. 112 (1873); Buckl. P. Z. S. 1876, pp. 283 & 291; id. op. cit. 1877, p. 454; Heugl. N.O.-Afr. ii. p. 103 (1877) (S. Kordofan); Selous, P. Z. S. 1881, p. 757; id. Hunter’s Wanderings S. Afr. p. 216 (1881); Pagenst. JB. Mus. Hamb. ii. p. 40 (1884); Flow. & Gars. Cat. Coll. Surg. ii. p. 272 (1884); Johnston, Kilimanjaro, pp. 218 & 394, fig. 47 (1886); Noack, Zool. JB. ii. p. 206 (1887); Jent. Notes Leyd. Mus. ix. p. 173 (1887); id. Cat. Ost. Leyd. Mus. (Mus. Pays-Bas, ix.) p. 138 (1889); id. Cat. Mamm. Leyd. Mus. (op. cit. xi.) p. 170 (1892); Hunter, in Willoughby’s E. Afr. p. 288 (1889); Crawshay, P. Z. S. 1890, p. 654 (Nyasa); W. Scl. Cat. Mamm. Calc. Mus. ii. p. 169 (1891); Flow. & Lyd. Mamm. p. 341 (1891); Ward, Horn. Meas. (1) p. 99 (1892), (2) p. 142 (1896); Nicolls & Egl. Sportsm. S. Afr. p. 41, pl. i. fig. 3 (1892); True, Pr. U. S. Nat. Mus. xv. p. 472 (1892); Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 229 (1893); Lugard, E. Afr. i. p. 537 (1893); Scl. P. Z. S. 1893, p. 728 (L. Mweru); Barkley, P. Z. S. 1894, p. 132 (Pungwue Valley); Thos. P. Z. S. 1894, p. 145 (Nyasa); Jackson, in Badm. Big Game Shooting, i. pp. 285 & 306 (1894); Lorenz, Ann. Mus. Wien, ix., Notizen, p. 61 (1894) (Upper Limpopo); Rendall, P. Z. S. 1895, p. 359 (Transvaal).

“Antilope pallah, Cuv.,” Gerv. Dict. Sci. Nat. i. p. 261 (1840).

Strepsiceros suara, Matsch. SB. Ges. nat. Freund. 1892, p. 135 (skin, not horns).

Æpyceros suara, Matsch. Thierw. O.-Afr., Säug. p. 129 (1895).

Æpyceros melampus johnstoni, Thos. P. Z. S. 1892, p. 553 (Nyasa).

Æpyceros melampus typicus, Thos. l. c.

Æpyceros melampus holubi, Lorenz, Ann. Mus. Wien, ix., Notizen, p. 62 (1894) (“N. of Zambezi”).

Vernacular Names:—Pallah of English; Roodebok or Roibok of Dutch; Pala of Bechuanas; Napala of Matabili; Ee-pala of Makalakas; Inzero of Masubias; Umpara of Makubas; Lubondwee of Batongas; Kug-ar of Masaras (Selous); Impaya of Transvaal Shangaans (Rendall); Suare in Tette (Peters); Nswala of Nyasa tribes (Crawshay) and of East-African Swahilis (Jackson); Kulungu and Nosi near Kilimanjaro (Johnston); Om-gaba in Arabic (Heuglin).

Size comparatively large; height at the withers about 36 inches. General colour bright reddish brown, paler along the lower part of the sides. In southern specimens the colour is rather duller and browner than in northern ones, but the difference is very slight. Head dark fawn; a mark over the anterior half of the eye, chin, interramia, and upper part of throat white. Belly pure white. In front of the eye, on the side of the face, there is generally, though not always, in southern specimens an indistinct darker patch, but this is never present in northern ones. A black patch occasionally present on the crown. Ears of medium length, their outer sides fawn, with the terminal third black. Limbs like the back, a lighter ring round the pasterns just above the hoofs; a pair of prominent black tufts of longer hairs on the distal extremity of the hind cannon-bones (whence the name of the species). Tail fairly long, its upperside with a narrow black line along it, extending more or less on to the back, its sides fawn basally, white terminally.

Skull as above described. The dimensions of a male skull are:—Basal length 10·3 inches, greatest breadth 4·4, muzzle to orbit 6·1.

The horns are particularly graceful, lyrate, convex forwards below, concave above, evenly spreading. In length, in the south, good specimens may attain about 18 or 20 inches in a direct line, and in the north more, up to about 21 or 22 inches, the largest recorded being 23. But in the intermediate districts, Nyasa, Zambesia, and Gazaland, they are much shorter, fully adult horns being often only 14 inches in length.

Female similar to the male, but without horns.

Hab. Southern and Eastern Africa, from Bechuanaland to Southern Kordofan.

The first account of the Pallah seems to have appeared in one of the early numbers of a work called Daniell’s ‘Illustrations of African Animated Nature and Scenery,’ published in London in 1812. The author of the letterpress, however, did not give it a scientific name, believing that it might be the “Kob” of Buffon, or an allied species. At about the same date Prof. Lichtenstein, who had met with this animal during his journeyings in Southern Africa from 1803 to 1806, published a description and figure of it in his ‘Reise nach südlichen Afrika’ under the name Antilope melampus. This description, with additional particulars, was repeated in the same author’s classical monograph of the genus Antilope, published in 1814, and his name, taken from the black tufts of short hair at the back of the hind legs just above the foot (which are clearly shown in our figures), has been employed, almost universally, for this species by subsequent writers. Lichtenstein met with his specimens near Klip Fontein in Namaqualand, where it was found to occur in small herds of five or six individuals. In 1812 the celebrated African traveller Burchell likewise met with the Pallah in Bechuanaland, and secured the first specimens which arrived at the British Museum.

Little more was added to our knowledge of this beautiful Antelope until the publication of Harris’s ‘Portraits of the Game and Wild Animals of Southern Africa’ in 1840. Harris devotes his fifteenth plate mainly to the illustration of the “rare and graceful Pallah,” which he states “first gladdens the sight of the traveller in Southern Africa upon the elevated districts north of Latakoo.” Here in the wooded slopes and valleys that environ the mountain-ranges of Kurrichane and Cashan it was met with in families of from twelve to twenty individuals of both sexes.

Harris, with all his experience, could recall to his memory “few objects more picturesque than the graceful figures of a wandering herd of these Antelopes dancing and bounding through the thousand stems of the acacia-groves in all the poetry of motion.” To these wooded districts Harris considered the Pallah to be restricted, not a single specimen having been observed in the open country. The flesh of the Pallah he characterizes as “tender and palatable,” although “rather dry,” like that of most Antelopes.

In these days, however, as we are informed by Messrs. Nicolls and Eglington, it is only on rare occasions that the Pallah is met with in the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and its present distribution is described by them as follows:—“A few herds still linger in the Transvaal along the Crocodile River. Almost exterminated in the regions through which the north-west tributaries of that river flow, it is only when the Zambesi is reached that the Palla is again to be frequently met with in any number. On the Chobe River it is still fairly common, being unknown on the Botletle, but it is only after passing the shores of Lake ’Ngami, and reaching the densely wooded banks of the Tonke, that the species again makes its appearance in a westerly direction. In those parts of Mashonaland and Matabeleland where it is not subject to continual persecution it is still fairly numerous. The Palla is highly gregarious, and frequents the thick, forest-clad banks of rivers, from which it never strays, except after periods of heavy rains, and then only when the pans and vleys (which are always dry during the greater portion of the year) are for a time filled with water. In remote parts, not very much frequented by man, the herds often exceed a hundred in number. Where not continually disturbed, this Antelope, so elegant and graceful of motion, is not by any means shy when approached, generally running but a short distance, and then standing and looking back again, a habit which easily permits of its being stalked.”

In the Transvaal, Mr. Barber kindly informs us, the Pallah was plentiful in the Waterburg and Lydenburg districts up to 1880. Now, however, it has been driven away many miles east, into the valleys that intersect the Lebombo range.

On the north-west of the Cape Colony the Pallah, as we shall see presently, is represented by a nearly allied, though probably distinct, form. But on the eastern side of Africa the Pallah has a wide range, and extends north certainly into British East Africa, and probably still farther into Kordofan. We will endeavour to trace its range throughout this wide area.

Mr. Selous found the Pallah on the tributaries of the Limpopo, and thence northwards on the banks of every river and stream which he has explored in Matabeleland and Mashonaland. The Impalas of the Limpopo he considers to be larger than those of the Chobe.

Peters records the Pallah as met with in the mountainous parts of the Portuguese province of Mozambique, near Tette, Chidima, and Sena, and gives its native names as here ‘Psuara’ or ‘Suara.’ Passing into British Central Africa we find this Antelope recorded by Mr. Crawshay as not common anywhere in Nyasaland, but where met with, as a rule, found in even larger numbers than the Waterbuck. Mr. Crawshay has seen it in companies of one hundred or more, and gives a number of localities around Lake Nyasa in which he has come across herds of it. No Antelope, Mr. Crawshay tells us, can compare with the Pallah in fleetness of foot, and certainly “no other can display such wonderful leaping powers. They go off like the proverbial arrow from the bow, and with most beautiful gliding bounds, cover the ground without apparently the least effort.” In Northern Nyasaland, Mr. J. B. Yule tells us, the Pallah is found only along the stony ridges between Deep Bay and Karonga.

In the highlands of Zomba and the adjacent districts of Nyasaland a local race of the Common Pallah is found, distinguished by its slenderer skull and much shorter horns; but as regards the colour of its fur it is precisely similar to the South-African form. Thomas was at one time of opinion that this highland form should constitute a separate subspecies, and proposed to name it after its discoverer, Sir Harry Johnston, who has done so much in investigating the fauna of British Central Africa, Æpyceros melampus johnstoni. Thomas, however, since the examination of further specimens is not disposed to insist upon the necessity of recognizing this subspecies as distinct.

In the low, dry, thicket-covered hills to the north of Lake Mweru both Mr. Crawshay and Mr. Sharpe have obtained specimens of this Antelope, which, according to the latter, is often confounded by the natives with the Lechee and Vardon’s Antelope under the common name “msala.”

In German East Africa, according to Dr. Matschie’s excellent Handbook, the Pallah occurs in many localities all over the country. At first misled by the association of the horns of a Lesser Koodoo and a skin of a Pallah, Dr. Matschie proposed to found a new species of Koodoo upon this animal, and to call it Strepsiceros suara. Afterwards recognizing his mistake he proposed to retain the term suara for the East-African Pallah, and to separate it specifically from the South-African animal as Æpyceros suara, on the ground of certain small discrepancies in colour. But after examining many specimens of the Pallah from East Africa we have come to the conclusion that the differences pointed out by Dr. Matschie are not confined to individuals from the same locality, and we cannot therefore regard Æ. suara as a distinct species.

The late Mr. F. Holmwood, formerly H.B.M. Consul-General at Zanzibar, wrote to us, “I have met with the Pallah in the countries of Usagara and Uzeguha, about 150 miles straight inland from Zanzibar, where they were very plentiful. The country has an elevation of 500 feet and is well watered. The Pallah go in troops of from 15 to 120. I once saw a pack of wild dogs hunt and run down one of these Antelopes which they first separated from a large herd.”

In British East Africa the Pallah is well known, and has been obtained by all the great sportsmen that have visited that territory. Mr. H. C. V. Hunter, in his appendix to Sir John Willoughby’s ‘East Africa,’ speaks of this Antelope as “common everywhere in thin bush and on the plains.” Dr. Abbott, as recorded by Mr. True, sent to Washington a good series of specimens obtained in 1889 from Taveta and Mount Kilimanjaro, where it had likewise been met with by Sir Harry Johnston during the Kilimanjaro Expedition of 1884. Mr. F. J. Jackson, in his notes on Antelopes published in the first volume of ‘Big Game Shooting’ of the Badminton Library, tells us that the Pallah is not met with in the coast-district of British East Africa. “But it occurs in small herds about 60 miles inland, and is plentiful at Adda and in the Teita country, and is found as far north as Turkwel in suitable localities, that is, in park-like open bush and thinly-wooded country, not far from water.” “The best heads,” Mr. Jackson says, “are obtained between Lakes Navaisha and Baringo, particularly in the vicinity of the small salt-lake Elmatita, where these beautiful beasts inhabit the open woods of juniper-trees.” In his paper on the Antelopes of the Mau district, recently read before the Zoological Society, Mr. Jackson likewise speaks of this Antelope, and again mentions the large size of the horns of the bucks in that part of British East Africa, which he gives as 22 and 23 inches from base to tip.

Fig. 47.

Head of Pallah, ♂, front view.

Whether the Pallah ranges further north than British East Africa and the neighbouring district of Turkwel is perhaps not quite certain, though it may possibly be the case. Our only authority on the subject is Heuglin, who states that the Pallah occurs on the White Nile at Scherk-el-Akaba, and is “very common” on the Djur River, where it is known by the Arabic name of ‘Om-gàba,’ or ‘Om-sàba.’ But Heuglin’s observations on this point, so far as we know, have not been confirmed, and we have never seen specimens from this locality.

On the whole, therefore, we consider Æpyceros melampus to be a wide-ranging species, extending from Bechuanaland in the south throughout the eastern side of Africa to British East Africa on the north, and perhaps reaching even to the White Nile. But over all these districts there is a certain amount of variety amongst the specimens, and we are not, therefore, at present inclined to recognize, even as subspecies, what have been designated as suara, johnstoni, and holubi, although future researches may lead us to a different conclusion.

So far as we know, the Pallah has been brought to Europe alive on two occasions only, and in both instances the animals were imported by Mr. C. Reiche, of Alfeld, from the northern part of the Transvaal. The first specimen (in 1890) went to the Zoological Garden of Berlin and the second (in 1890) to the Zoological Garden of Vienna. Both were young males, and generally of a reddish colour, with the horns slightly developed. They did not live long after their arrival in the Gardens.

The Pallah is represented in our National Collection by a mounted male from Kilimanjaro shot by Mr. F. J. Jackson and by a mounted head from Lake Elmetaita presented by Captain Lugard, the horns of which are amongst the longest of known specimens. There is likewise a mounted head from the Zomba highlands presented by Sir Harry Johnston and representing the short-horned race which inhabits the mountain-districts south of Lake Nyasa. Besides these there are skulls, skins, and horns from various districts in South and East Africa.

Our illustration of the Pallah (Plate XLVIII.) has been put upon the stone by Mr. Smit from a water-colour drawing by Wolf prepared for the late Sir Victor Brooke and now belonging to Sir Douglas Brooke. The drawing is noted on the back as having been taken from a head belonging to Mr. Selous and a loose skin. It represents an adult male in two positions. The female, as already stated, is absolutely hornless.

The woodcut (fig. 47, p. 23), which gives a front view of a good head of the Pallah, was drawn by Mr. Smit under Sir Victor Brooke’s directions.

August, 1897.

78. THE ANGOLAN PALLAH.
ÆPYCEROS PETERSI, Bocage.

Æpyceros petersi, Boc. P. Z. S. 1878, p. 741; Huet, Bull. Soc. Acclim. (4) iv. p. 479 (1887); Scl. P. Z. S. 1890, p. 460 (woodcut of head); Flow. & Lyd. Mamm. p. 341 (1891); Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 231 (1893).

Æpyceros melampus, Jent. Notes Leyd. Mus. ix. p. 173 (1887) (?) (Mossamedes).

Similar, so far as is yet known, to Æ. melampus in all respects except that on the face, as is shown in our woodcut (p. 26), there is a prominent brown patch running along the top of the muzzle. This character is said to be perfectly constant, and we therefore admit for the present the validity of the Angolan form as a distinct species.

The Angolan Pallah was first recognized as a distinct species by Prof. J. V. Barboza du Bocage, a distinguished naturalist of Portugal, in a list of Angolan Antelopes published in the Zoological Society’s ‘Proceedings’ for 1878. M. du Bocage based his description upon two specimens forwarded to the Lisbon Museum by the well-known explorer d’Anchieta. Of these the male was stated to have come from Capangombe, the female from Humbe—two places both in the province of Mossamedes north of the Cunene River. M. Bocage distinguished the new species from Æ. melampus principally by its black face, and dedicated it to the late Professor Peters, of Berlin, whose opinion agreed with his that it was distinct. It is probable that the skull from the Cunene River, obtained by Heer Van der Kellen in October 1885, and referred by Dr. Jentink, in his paper on Mammals from Mossamedes, to Æ. melampus, may belong properly to Æ. petersi.

Fig. 48.

Front view of head of Angolan Pallah.

(P. Z. S. 1890, p. 460.)

In 1889 Capt. F. Cookson, during a sporting excursion into Hasholand or Kaokoland, in the neighbourhood of the Cunene River met with some twenty or more specimens of this Antelope, and brought back a single head to England. This head, mounted by Mr. Rowland Ward, was exhibited by Sclater at a meeting of the Zoological Society on June 17th, 1890, as an example of Æpyceros petersi. The notice of Sclater’s exhibition published in the Zoological Society’s ‘Proceedings’ was accompanied by an illustration, which, by the kindness of the Council of the Zoological Society, we are enabled to reproduce (fig. 48). The dimensions of these horns are given by Mr. Rowland Ward, in his ‘Records of Big Game’ (1896), as 18¾ inches in a straight line and 22¾ on front curve, and the distance between the tips as 12¼ inches.

So far as we know, this is all the evidence to be offered as to the existence of this species, concerning which further particulars would be very desirable. There is no example of it in the British Museum.

August, 1897.

Genus III. SAIGA.

Size medium. Nose large, elongate, bent downwards, and inflated; the nostrils opening downwards. Tail short. Mammæ 4. Accessory hoofs present.

Skull with short nasals and premaxillaries, and an exceedingly large and high nasal opening; small supraorbital pits; no lachrymal vacuities; anteorbital fossæ shallow. Lower premolars two, at least in the recent species.

Horns of medium length, cylindrical, rather irregularly lyrate, strongly ringed, pale whitish or amber-coloured. Female hornless.

Range of the Genus. Steppes of S.E. Europe and Western Asia.

One species only.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. XLIX.

Wolf del. J. Smit lith.

Hanhart imp.

The Saiga

SAIGA TATARICA.

Published by R. H. Porter.

79. THE SAIGA.
SAIGA TATARICA (Linn.).
[PLATE XLIX.]

Ibex imberbis, Gmel. N. Comm. Ac. Petrop. v. p. 345 (1760) & vii. p. 39, pl. xix. (♂ ♀) (1761). (Not binomial.)

Le Saiga, Buff. Hist. Nat. xii. p. 198, pl. xxii. fig. 2 (horn) (1764).

Capra tatarica, Linn. Syst. Nat. (12) i. p. 97 (1766) (ex Gmel.); Müll. Natursyst. i. p. 417 (1773).

Saiga tatarica, Gray, List Mamm. B. M. p. 160 (1843); id. List Ost. B. M. p. 55 (1847); id. Knowsl. Men. p. 3 (1850); id. P. Z. S. 1850, p. 112; id. Cat. Ung. B. M. p. 51, pl. vi. figs. 1 & 2 (skull) (1852); Temm. Esq. Zool. Guin. p. 189 (1853); Gerr. Cat. Bones Mamm. B. M. p. 231 (1862); Glitsch, Bull. Soc. Moscow, 1865, p. 207; Sclat. P. Z. S. 1867, p. 240, pl. xvii.; Murie, P. Z. S. 1870, p. 451 (anatomy & position); Gray, Cat. Rum. B. M. p. 33 (1872); id. Hand-l. Rum. B. M. p. 102 (1873); Scl. List An. Z. S. (8) p. 143 (1883), (9) p. 157 (1896); Flow. & Gars. Cat. Coll. Surg. ii. p. 265 (1884); Sterndale, Mamm. Ind. p. 468 (1884); Flow. & Lyd. Mamm. p. 341 (1891); Ward, Horn Meas. (1) p. 101 (1892), (2) p. 145 (1896); Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 163 (1893).

Antilope tatarica, Forst. Descr. Anim. p. 390 (1844); Sund. Pecora, K. Vet.-Ak. Handl. 1845, p. 270 (1847); id. Hornschuch’s Transl., Arch. Skand. Beitr. ii. p. 266; Reprint, p. 86 (1848).

Colus tataricus, Brehm, Thierl. iii. p. 283 (1880).

Antilope saiga, Pall. Misc. Zool. p. 6 (1766); id. Spic. Zool. xii. pp. 14 & 21 (1777); Zimm. Geogr. Gesch. ii. p. 121 (1780); Bodd. Elench. Anim. p. 143 (1785); Schr. Säug. pl. cclxxvi. (1787); Gmel. Linn. S. N. i. p. 185 (1788); Kerr, Linn. An. K. p. 309 (1792); Donnd. Zool. Beytr. i. p. 626 (1792); Link, Beytr. Nat. ii. p. 99 (1795); G. Cuv. Tabl. Élém. p. 163 (1798); Bechst. Syst. Uebers. vierf. Thierr. ii. p. 645 (1800); Shaw, Gen. Zool. ii. pt. 2, p. 339 (1801); Turt. Linn. Syst. Nat. i. p. 112 (1802); G. Cuv. Dict. Sci. Nat. ii. p. 229 (1804); Desm. N. Dict. d’H. N. (1) xxiv. Tabl. p. 33 (1804); Tiedem. Zool. i. p. 409 (1808); Pall. Zoogr. Ross.-As. i. p. 252 (1811); G. Fisch. Zoogn. iii. p. 428 (1814); Afz. N. Act. Ups. vii. p. 220 (1815); Desm. N. Dict. d’H. N. (2) ii. p. 181 (1816); G. Cuv. R. A. i. p. 261 (1817); Goldf. Schr. Säug. v. p. 1216 (1818); Schinz, Cuv. Thierr. i. p. 389 (1821); Desmoul. Dict. Class. d’H. N. i. p. 44–2. (1822); Desm. Mamm. ii. p. 452 (1822); Less. Man. Mamm. p. 391 (1827); J. B. Fisch. Syn. Mamm. p. 458 (1829); Less. Compl. Buff. x. p. 289 (1836); Laurill. Dict. Univ. d’H. N. i. p. 616 (1839); Gerv. Dict. Sci. Nat. i. p. 260 (1840); Less. N. Tabl. R. A., Mamm. p. 176 (1842); Wagn. Schr. Säug. Suppl. iv. p. 420 (1844), v. p. 402 (1855); Schinz, Syn. Mamm. ii. p. 408 (1845); id. Mon. Antil. p. 12 (1848); Gieb. Säug. p. 313 (1853); Nehring, Z. Ges. Erdkunde Berl. xxvi. pp. 327 & 338 (1891) (distribution); id. Zool. Gart. 1891, p. 328.

Capra sayga, Forst. Phil. Trans. lvii. p. 344 (1767).

Antilope (Gazella) saiga, Licht. Mag. nat. Freund. vi. p. 171 (1814).

Cerophorus (Antilope) saiga, Blainv. Bull. Soc. Philom. 1816, p. 75.

Colus saiga, Fitz. SB. Wien, lix. pt. 1, p. 161 (1809).

Saiga saiga, Jent. Cat. Ost. Leyd. Mus. (Mus. Pays-Bas, ix.) p. 134 (1887); id. Cat. Mamm. Leyd. Mus. (op. cit. xi.) p. 165 (1892).

Antilope scythica, Pall. Spic. Zool. fasc. i. p. 9 (1767); Müll. Natursyst. Suppl. p. 53 (1776); Erxl. Syst. R. A. p. 289 (1777); Zimm. Spec. Zool. Geog. p. 541 (1777); Gatt. Brev. Zool. i. p. 83 (1780); Oken, Allg. Naturg. vii. p. 1365 (1838).

Cemas colus, Oken, Lehrb. Nat. p. 736 (1816).

Antilope colus, H. Sm. Griff. An. K. iv. p. 226, v. p. 335 (1827); Less. N. Tabl. R. A., Mamm. p. 176 (1812).

Saiga colus, Gray, Ann. Mag. N. H. (1) xviii. p. 231 (1846).

Gazella colus, Turner, P. Z. S. 1850, p. 168.

Vernacular Names:—Saigàk in Russian; Suhak or Baran polnii in Polish; Ak-kirk of the Tartars; Sogak of the Caucasians; Gorossuun, the male Ohna, the female Scharcholdsi, of the Calmucks; Jaban-choin of the Turks; Beschen-Chusch of Circassians; Linjodsha of Chinese.—Pallas.

Height at withers about 30 inches. General colour in summer dull yellowish, with a whitish throat and indistinct facial markings; in winter nearly uniform whitish all over, without markings anywhere. Ears very short, thickly haired. Tail short, uniform in colour with the body.

Skull and horns of male as above described (p. 29). The dimensions of an old male skull are:—Basal length 9·5 inches, greatest breadth 5·1, muzzle to orbit 6·3.

The horns attain a length of about 13 or 14 inches, and are of a peculiar waxy or pale amber-colour.

Female similar, but without horns.

Hab. Steppes of Southern Russia, and South-eastern Siberia.

The Saiga, although closely allied to the Gazelles in structure, is, as will be seen from our figure, very different in external appearance, especially as regards the bloated form of the nose in the adult male, which gives it a most ungainly look and renders it easily distinguishable from all its allies of this group.

The Saiga was known to many of the ancient writers, and is described and figured by Gesner, in his ‘History of Quadrupeds,’ as an inhabitant of Scythia and Sarmatia, under the name “Colus,” which is said to have been formed by transposition from the native name “Sulac.” The earliest good account of it, however, is that of the well-known naturalist J. G. Gmelin, who met with it during his travels in Siberia between 1733 and 1743, and described it at full length, in an article on new quadrupeds published at St. Petersburg in 1760, under the name of “Ibex imberbis.” Upon Gmelin’s Ibex imberbis Linnæus, in his ‘Systema Naturæ,’ based his Capra tatarica. Of the two generic names proposed for this Antelope, Saiga by Gray in 1843, and Colus by Wagner in the following year, we naturally prefer the oldest, and adopt as the proper name of this Antelope, which is the sole representative of its genus, Saiga tatarica.

Buffon, in his ‘Histoire Naturelle,’ also employed Saiga as the name of this animal and based his account of it mainly upon Gmelin’s description, stating, however, that there were specimens of its horns in the Royal Cabinet at Paris. Following the prior authorities, he describes the Saiga as a kind of wild goat found at that epoch in Hungary, Poland, Tartary, and Southern Siberia in herds on the plains, very fleet and active, and difficult of capture. We shall see, however, that the range of this animal in Europe has become very much more restricted in recent times.

The best modern account of the Saiga is that given in 1865, in the Bulletin of the Imperial Society of Naturalists of Moscow, by Herr Constantin Glitsch, of Sarepta on the Lower Volga, who was employed for two years by the Imperial Russian Society of Acclimatisation to obtain living examples of this Antelope for the Zoological Garden of Moscow.

In the days of Pallas, Herr Glitsch tells us, the Saiga had a wide distribution in Europe, extending from the borders of Poland, all across the Dnieper and the great flat southern portion of Russia to the Caucasus and the Caspian. The European herds of this animal were also often reinforced by large accessions from the steppes of Western Asia, which, driven by stress of famine from their native haunts, crossed the Ural and the Volga by the ice in winter. A hundred years later we find a great change in the range of the Saiga, caused by the increase of cultivation and population in the European portion of its range, which has driven this animal back into the East. On the Dnieper, Herr Glitsch tells us, the Saiga has altogether disappeared, in the Ukraine it is no longer to be found, and even on the Don, where it was formerly so plentiful, it is quite a scarce animal. Nowadays, in fact, in Europe the Saiga is confined to the Kalmuk Steppes between the Don and the Volga, and is found only within the triangle lying between these two rivers, of which Tzaritzyn on the Volga forms the northern point.

On the flat and treeless plains which lie within these limits the Saiga still exists in tolerable abundance, though diminishing in numbers yearly as population increases. In the summer months it is distributed over the whole of this area; in winter, beginning from November, it is driven by the snow and cold from its northern resorts towards the south, where it finds shelter in the rich grassy valleys of the Sal and the Manitsch. Here the Saiga passes the winter on ground generally free from snow. Here it breeds in the spring, and as soon as the snow is melted in the more northern plains it begins its migration to the North. At this season the Saigas go northwards in considerable herds, the bucks first, followed by the does, and by the end of May they have all reached the most northern boundaries of their range. But there are many circumstances which interfere with the regularity of this migration, and at Sarepta, near the north end of their area, there are remarkable variations in their numbers. In some summers only a few scattered individuals are to be met with, in other years large herds are to be found in this district throughout the summer. But in very severe winters, when even the most southern districts inhabited by this Antelope are invaded by excessive cold and deep snow, the hungry beasts are driven all over the country in search of food, and stray even as far north as the vicinity of Sarepta. On these occasions whole herds are often entombed in the snow-drifts and fall an easy prey to the natives, who follow them on horseback and slaughter them by hundreds. Under these circumstances it can easily be understood that the Saiga is a gradually vanishing animal in Europe. One thing, however, is in their favour, that the males, whose presence is betrayed by their horns, fall more easy victims to the hunter than the hornless females, which are more readily concealed in the herbage and thus escape notice.

Fig. 49.

Group of Saigas (1/12 nat. size).

(From the ‘Royal Natural History,’ vol. ii. p. 298.)

Herr Glitsch gives us detailed and excellent descriptions of the form and colouring of the Saiga, and of the other peculiarities of the animal of both sexes and in all ages. In the winter coat the hairs on the upper part of the body are from two to three inches long, rather shorter on the underparts, and a long beard extends from the chin down the middle line of the neck to the breast. The older the animal is the brighter is its winter dress.

The voice of the Saiga is stated by Glitsch to be a deep loud bleat, which is frequently uttered by the young animals, but by the older animals only in the pairing-season and when they are wounded. The hearing, the sight, and the smell of the Saiga are all highly developed, and combine to render it a very difficult animal for the hunter to approach.

The Saigas are said to begin breeding about the middle of December (new style), and at this season commonly assemble in large herds in the warm side-valleys of the Sal and Manitsch, which are mostly free from snow. At this time the young are said to be driven away from the parents in flocks into the thickets, while the males fight fiercely one with another for the possession of the females. The female is stated to go five months with young, and to bring forth about the middle of May amongst the higher vegetation of the steppe. As a rule, she produces two young ones, seldom only one. The mother is sometimes seen followed by three young ones, but in such a case the third is, probably, an adopted animal. In the morning, after suckling her young ones, the mother leaves them concealed in the herbage, and goes far off to feed, returning to them only in the evening and staying with them all night. In about four weeks’ time the young Saigas learn to feed themselves, and the young horns begin to appear in the bucks. They suck, however, till the end of October, and follow after the mother up to the winter. The food of the Saiga consists not so much of the true grasses as of the leafy shrubs of the steppes, such as Artemisia, Atriplex, and Glycirhiza, as well as Inula dysenterica and other saline plants.

Besides mankind, Herr Glitsch tells us, the Saiga Antelope in the Volga district has no special enemy. The wolves and foxes, the only large beasts of prey of these steppes, can only attack quite young animals, the older ones easily making their escape. They have one great plague in the steppes, however, in the insects, especially a species of Œstrus, by which at times they seem to be driven nearly crazy, and with the eggs and larvæ of which their skins seem to be almost always infested.

The flesh of the Saiga is said to be particularly tender and well-flavoured, and more like good mutton than anything else.

The favourite mode of chase of the Saiga is to drive out on to the steppes at early dawn with a cart containing provisions, and, after hiding the cart in some ravine, to stalk them with a rifle in the same manner as other large game-animals. But they are also occasionally taken in steel traps which are set upon their favourite runs. The Kalmuks use leather slings for the same purpose.

Beyond the Ural River the Saiga extends widely over the Kirghiz Steppes of Central Asia north of the Aral. Mr. William Bateson, F.R.S., has kindly favoured us with the following notes of what he heard and saw of the Saiga when in this district in 1896–7:—

“The Saiga is fairly common in the Kirghiz Steppes, inhabiting the dry tracts covered with various species of Artemisia (Kirghiz, Jusun), upon which no doubt it feeds. It is not found in the sandy regions of the Kara-kum. I believe also that it does not live in the moister steppes, which bear a meadow vegetation. Its northern distribution in West Central Asia must therefore be bounded by the valley of the Irtish and its tributaries, which is all meadow-land. I met with Saigas first at the end of July 1896, in the neighbourhood of Lake Tschalkar, in the Turgai district. In this region we came upon their tracks constantly, and occasionally saw herds of various sizes from ten or a dozen to about a hundred. When we appeared they made off. In doing so I noticed that they generally travelled at right angles to our line of approach, though this may have been due to some accident in the lie of the ground. The Kirghiz catch them in traps set in their runs. A young one so caught was brought to me on July 27, 1896. Its horns and horn-cores were only slightly developed.

“In the following year I travelled from Kozalinsk, on the Aral Sea, to Lake Balkhash, following the Shu River. In this journey we saw Saigas from time to time on the edge of the Bek Pak Dala, or Hungry Steppe, in April, but no large herds were seen. The Kirghiz spoke of them as common in the Bek Pak. Both this district and the Tschalkar Steppes, except for wells on the caravan-roads, are almost waterless after the snow has disappeared, so probably the Saiga can subsist without more water than the dew and its food-plants provide.

“The Kirghiz name of the Saiga is ‘Kiik’ and the word Saiga is only known to them as Russian, in which language, however, the word is not really ‘Saiga,’ but ‘Säigak.’”

As regards the range of the Saiga at the present time, Herr E. Büchner, Director of the Zoological Museum of the Imperial Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg, has kindly favoured us with the following particulars:—

The Saiga is still met with, although very unfrequently, in the country of the Ural Cossacks between the Wolga and the Ural, and extends occasionally into the Government of Samara. East of the river Ural its range extends over the Kirghiz Steppes and the steppe district of all West Siberia—Turgai, Akmolinsk, and Semipalatinsk. South of this the Saiga is also found in the steppes of Russian Turkestan and in the Dsungarian steppes of Western Mongolia, but not in Transcaspia.

Such is the range of the Saiga at present. As already shown, it was much wider than now even within the period of history. But when we go back into the Pleistocene times we have good evidence that the Saiga had a very much more extensive range, its fossil remains having been obtained from the caverns and superficial deposits of Hungary, Belgium, and Southern France. In the last-named country the researches of French palæontologists have proved that its bones and teeth occur in considerable numbers in certain of the cave deposits in the Departments of Vienne, Dordogne, Tarn-et-Garonne, and Haute-Garonne. Moreover, as shown by Mons. Gervais, at least one recognizable sketch of the head of the Saiga has been found on an artificially incised bone of the character so often met with in caverns where relics of human handiwork occur. It appears, therefore, that the Saiga inhabited Western Europe as late as the era of Palæolithic man, and was, moreover, in all probability one of the objects of his chase.

Still more interesting, however, is it to find that, as shown by Mr. A. Smith Woodward in a paper read before the Zoological Society in 1890, the Saiga was also found in former days in Great Britain. During excavations made in that year in the Pleistocene deposits near Twickenham, a fine example of the frontlet and horn-cores of an adult male Saiga tatarica was discovered. By the kindness of the Zoological Society we are enabled to reproduce the figure of this interesting specimen (fig. 50, p. 39), which was exhibited by Mr. A. Smith Woodward on the occasion in question, and is now in the gallery of the British Museum.

Finally we may mention that, as has been recorded by Prof. Nehring, there have been discovered in Moravia remains of a Saiga differing from the living species in having three, in place of two, lower premolars[2]. From the occurrence of these remains, and those of other mammals now characteristic of the steppes in Western Europe, it has been argued by geologists that steppe-like conditions and climate must formerly have prevailed over large districts that have now quite changed their character.

Fig. 50.

Frontlet and horns of Saiga (fossil), ♂. ½ nat. size.

(P. Z. S. 1890, p. 614.)

The Saiga has occasionally, but not often, been brought alive to the menageries of Western Europe. In 1864 and 1865 young male specimens of this Antelope were first received from Moscow by the Zoological Society of London. In November 1866 a pair of Saigas was deposited in the Zoological Society’s Gardens, and subsequently purchased, after living for several months in the Regent’s Park Gardens. An excellent coloured figure of these strange animals was made by Mr. J. Wolf in 1867, and published in the Society’s ‘Proceedings,’ and after their death Dr. Murie, then Prosector to the Society, based upon them an elaborate account of their structure and anatomy, which will be found in the volume of the same publication for the year 1870. By the kindness of the Zoological Society we are enabled to reproduce here an excellent figure of the head of the adult male Saiga in its winter coat, taken from a drawing made by Mr. Berjeau under Dr. Murie’s supervision. We cannot do better than refer those who are interested in the structure and anatomy of the Saiga to Dr. Murie’s excellent article, from which, however, we venture to borrow his account of the cutaneous glands of this curious form, which appear to be not less than ten in number.

Fig. 51.

Head of male Saiga in its winter dress.

(P. Z. S. 1870, p. 495.)

“In the Saiga there are two small suborbital glandular sacs, the so-called crumen, lachrymal sinus, or tearpit of some authors, which yield a thick whitish or pale yellow exudation. These are situated in front of the orbit, and slightly below the median transverse line of the eye. In the younger female the small external openings of these were placed ¾ of an inch, and in the male 1½ inch, in advance of the orbital ring; but the sinuses or sacs themselves lay in the broadish and moderately excavated infraorbital fossæ.

“Each foot, as in the sheep, possesses an interdigital sac about 1½ inch in depth, and opening by a narrow constricted aperture at its front and upper part. The orifice is hidden by very short closely placed yellowish hairs, whilst below these the sac is superficially covered by a tuft of much stronger and longer hairs. The secretion derived from these interdigital bags is yellow and of a hardish ceruminous character.

“On the anterior aspect, but slightly to the inner side, of each fore knee is a small dermal gland, or a thickening of the cutaneous tissues, covered by a brownish patch of firm hairs.

“In the inguinal regions of both sexes bare oblong or lozenge-shaped spaces exist; each of these is 5 inches or more in extreme long diameter. Upon these inner edges in the female the imperfectly developed udders and four teats are situated.” (P. Z. S. 1870, p. 500.)

The Saiga is represented in the British Museum by a mounted pair from Sarepta on the Volga, and by other skins and skeletons from the same locality. There are also some horns obtained by Dr. O. Finsch on the steppe near Saisan, on the Russo-Chinese frontier, in 1876 (see Finsch, ‘Reise nach West-Sibirien im Jahre 1876,’ p. 193).

Our figure of the Saiga (Plate XLIX.) has been put upon the stone by Mr. Smit from a black-and-white sketch prepared by Mr. Wolf for the late Sir Victor Brooke. The original sketch, which belongs to Sir Douglas Brooke, has been kindly lent to us for examination. We regret to say, however, that we have no particulars as to the individual from which Mr. Wolf’s drawing was taken.

August, 1897.

Genus IV. PANTHOLOPS.

Size medium. Nose less bent downwards than in Saiga, but more swollen laterally, at least in the male. No suborbital glands. Tail short. Mammæ 2. Large glands in feet and groin.

Skull without distinct pits between the eyes, or lachrymal vacuities, or anteorbital fossæ. Nasal opening ample, but not so large as that of Saiga.

Horns long, erect, compressed, slightly diverging, nearly straight below, evenly curving forwards above; ringed in front. Female hornless.

Range of Genus. Plateau of Tibet.

One species only.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. L.

Wolf del, J. Smit lith.

Hanhart imp.

The Chiru.

PANTHOLOPS HODGSONI.

Published by R. H Porter

80. THE CHIRU.
PANTHOLOPS HODGSONI (Abel).

Antilope hodgsoni, Abel, Calc. Gov. Gazette, cf. Phil. Mag. lxviii. p. 234 (1826); Edin. Journ. Sc. vii. p. 164 (1827); ‘Editor,’ Glean, in Sc. i. p. 144 (1829); J. B. Fisch. Syn. Mamm. p. 462 (1829); Hodgs. Gleanings in Sci. ii. p. 348, pls. iii., v. (1830); id. P. Z. S. 1831, p. 52, 1832, p. 14, 1833, p. 110; Laurill. Dict. Univ. d’H. N. i. p. 617 (1839); Gerv. Dict. Sci. Nat. i. p. 264 (1840); Wagn. Schr. Säug. Supp. iv. p. 420 (1844), v. p. 402 (1855); Schinz, Syn. Mamm. ii. p. 415 (1845); Sund. Pecora, K. Vet.-Ak. Handl. 1845, p. 270 (1847); id. Hornschuch’s Transl., Arch. Skand. Beitr. ii. p. 266; Reprint, p. 86 (1848); Gieb. Säug. p. 314 (1853); Hooker, Himalayan Journal, ii. pp. 132 & 158 (1854); Przewalski, Mongolia (Russian ed.), ii. pl. iii. ♂, pl. iv. fig. 2 ♀; Morgan’s Transl. ii. pp. 204 & 223 (1876).

Pantholops hodgsoni, Hodgs. P. Z. S. 1834, p. 80; id. J. A. S. B. xi. p. 282 (1842); id. Calc. Journ. iv. p. 291 (1844); Gray, Cat. Ung. B. M. p. 53, pl. vi. figs. 3, 4 (skull) (1852); Adams, P. Z. S. 1858, p. 521; Gerr. Cat. Bones Mamm. B. M. p. 232 (1862); Fitz. SB. Wien, lix. 1, p. 162 (1869); Gray, Cat. Rum. B. M. p. 33 (1872); id. Hand-l. Rum. B. M. p. 102 (1873); Blanf. Yark. Miss., Mamm. p. 89, pl. xvi. (1879); Sterndale, Mamm. Ind. p. 469 (1884); Kinloch, Large Game Shooting, p. 106, plate of head (1885); Jent. Cat. Ost. Leyd. Mus. (Mus. Pays-Bas, ix.) p. 134 (1889); id. Cat. Mamm. Leyd. Mus. (op. cit. xi.) p. 166 (1892); W. Scl. Cat. Mamm. Calc. Mus. ii. p. 163 (1891); Blanf. Mamm. Brit. Ind. p. 524 (1891); Flow. & Lyd. Mamm. p. 341 (1891); Ward, Horn Meas. (1) p. 102 (1892), (2) p. 146 (1896); Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 157 (1892); Percy, Badm. Big Game Shooting, ii. p. 335 (1894).

Kemas hodgsoni, Gray, List Mamm. B. M. p. 157 (1843); id. Ann. Mag. N. H. (1) xviii. p. 231 (1846); id. Cat. Mamm. Nepal (Hodgson Coll.) (1) p. 26 (1846), (2) p. 13 (1863); id. List Ost. B. M. p. 55 (1874); id. Knowsl. Men. p. 3 (1850); id. P. Z. S. 1850, p. 112; Horsf. Cat. Mamm. Mus. E.I. Co. p. 166 (1851); Temm. Esq. Zool. Guin. p. 189 (1853); Blanf. J. A. S. B. xli. pt. 2, p. 39 (1872).

Antilope kemas, H. Sm. Griff. An. K. iv. p. 196, v. p. 328 (1827); Less. Compl. Buff. x. p. 285 (1836).

“The Chíru,” Quart. Orient. Mag. ii. p. 160 (1824), undè

Antilope chiru, Less. Man. Mamm. p. 371 (1827) (ex Quart. Orient. Mag. 1824, p. 260); Oken, Allg. Naturg. vii. p. 1369 (1838); Less. N. Tabl. R. A., Mamm. p. 179 (1842).

Vernacular Names:—Chíru of Southern Tibetans and of sportsmen generally; Tsus ♂, Chus ♀, Chiru and Chuhu (Blanford); Orongo of Northern Tibetans (Przewalski).

Height at withers about 31 or 32 inches. Hair very close, thick, and crisp. Colour pale fawn, with a peculiar fulvous or pinkish suffusion, especially on the flanks. Belly whitish, not sharply separated from the colour of the sides. Face of male black, crown and neck whitish. Sides of muzzle in male markedly swollen. Ears short, but pointed, whitish. Limbs pale greyish white, a black line running down their anterior faces in the male; female without blacker markings. Tail short, coloured like the rump.

Skull dimensions of a male:—Basal length 10·2 inches, greatest breadth 5, muzzle to orbit 6·4.

Horns long, very graceful, nearly straight, only slightly curved backwards below and forwards above, remarkably uniform in length and curvature, generally from 23 to 26 inches in length, the largest recorded being just under 28 inches.

Female similar to male, but without horns.

Hab. Plateau of Tibet.

The Chiru, or Tibetan Antelope as it is often called, although known by the vague reports of the natives as long ago, perhaps, as 1816, was first introduced to science by Abel in 1826, from information and specimens furnished to him by the great naturalist and collector Hodgson, whose name it worthily bears. As we learn from Hodgson’s article published in ‘Gleanings in Science’ for 1830, it was in 1824 or 1825 that a live Chiru was sent to him in Nepal, where he was British Resident at the Court of Catmandu. Hodgson, as was his custom, drew up an elaborate description of the animal, and, after its death, sent the notes along with the skin to Dr. C. Abel, who was at that time one of the Secretaries of the Asiatic Society at Calcutta. Dr. Abel, after making a few additions to the description, and proposing to name the animal Antilope hodgsoni, read his paper at one of the Meetings of the Asiatic Society, and, as it appears from notices in the ‘Philosophical Magazine’ of 1826 and ‘Brewster’s Journal of Science’ of 1827, had it published in the Calcutta Government Gazette or Journal.

But Hodgson, probably owing to the death of Dr. Abel shortly afterwards, was unaware of this fact, and believing that Dr. Abel had lost or neglected his communication, redescribed the species in 1830 under the name Antilope hodgsoni, which he was told that Dr. Abel had applied to it. At that date (1830) Hodgson states that the living specimen already referred to was the only example he had ever seen of this animal, and that up to that time he had never been able to get another example of it alive or dead. It is clear, however, that Hodgson shortly after this date was enabled to obtain further specimens of this Antelope. In one of his letters published in the ‘Proceedings of the Zoological Society’ for 1832 it is stated that three individuals had been examined, and in a subsequent communication (dated from Nepal in February 1834) skins of the Chiru of both sexes are referred to as being amongst other skins of mammals and birds which had been recently despatched to the Society. In the latter communication also Mr. Hodgson suggests the propriety of regarding the Chiru as representing “a new subgenus to be termed Pantholops, the vulgar old name for the Unicorn.” Naturalists have generally acquiesced in Hodgson’s suggestion on this point, and we follow the usual practice in denominating the present species Pantholops hodgsoni.

Other names, however, have been proposed. In 1827 Lesson, in his ‘Manuel de Mammalogie,’ called this Antelope Antilope chiru, quoting as his reference an article in the ‘Quarterly Oriental Magazine’ for 1824 (p. 260), which is, however, merely another version of Abel’s paper.

About the same date also Hamilton Smith, in one of the volumes of Griffith’s edition of Cuvier’s ‘Animal Kingdom,’ proposed, with a note of interrogation, to give the name Antilope kemas to the Chiru, quoting its description from one of the above-mentioned reports of Abel’s original paper.

We are quite satisfied, however, that it is best to employ the specific name hodgsoni for this species as that which was first applied to it.

Since the days when Hodgson was Resident in Nepal many British travellers and sportsmen have penetrated into the snowy ranges of the Himalaya, and have met with the Tibetan Antelope. Sir Joseph Hooker, in the second volume of his ‘Himalayan Journal,’ tells us that he saw Chirus on the Cholamoo lakes near the Donkia Pass in Sikim in October 1849. They were feeding in company with “Gaurs” (Gazella picticaudata) upon the short grass about the lake, which lies at an elevation of some 17,000 feet above the sea-level. Sir Joseph Hooker gives an excellent figure of the remarkable horns of this Antelope, which by his kindness we are enabled to reproduce, and alludes to the ideas of Hodgson (which were shared in by Hue and Gabet) of the profile view of these horns having given rise to the belief of the existence of a Unicorn in Tibet. We should mention that Blanford when he visited Sikim in 1871 was told by the Tibetans that the Chiru is not now found within a long distance of the frontier, but only beyond it in Tibet proper. He admits, however, that it is not probable that there could have been any mistake about so fine and conspicuous an animal.

Fig. 52.

Horns of Chiru.

(From Hooker’s ‘Himalayan Journal,’ vol. ii. p. 158.)

But by far the most complete account of the Chiru yet published is that given by General Kinloch in his excellent volume on the ‘Large Game of Tibet and Northern India,’ from the second edition of which, published in 1885, we venture to extract the following particulars:—

“So far as we know, Thibetan Antelopes are never found near the habitations of man, but frequent the plains and elevated valleys far above the limits of cultivation, where few human beings, save occasional wandering shepherds, ever disturb them. The most accessible country to sportsmen where the Thibetan Antelope is to be found is Chung Chenmo, a desolate valley to the north of the Pangong lakes. In this valley, and in those of the streams which flow down to it from the spurs of the Kárá Koram mountains, Antelope are usually plentiful; and they are also to be met with all over the lofty plateau which has to be crossed on the road to Yarkand. A few have been shot in the neighbourhood of the Mánsarovárá lake near the north-western frontier of Nepál, but there are great difficulties in the way of getting there, the Thibetans jealously excluding all foreigners.

“The Thibetan Antelope is considerably larger than the Indian Antelope, and somewhat more heavily made; its remarkable thick coat of closely set brittle hairs also tending to increase its apparent bulk. The color is a light fawn, varying in shade on different parts of the body, and tending almost to white in old buck. The legs are dark-colored, and the faces of very old males are nearly black. The muzzle is very curious; instead of being fine and compressed, as is the case with most deer and antelope, it is considerably enlarged and puffy-looking; so much so, that properly stuffed heads are generally supposed by persons unacquainted with the animal to be failures of the taxidermist.

“The horns are, perhaps, the most graceful of those of any antelope: set close together at the base, they diverge in an easy curve for about two-thirds of their length, and then converging more abruptly, approach each other, in some specimens, within three or four inches at the tips. Out of twenty-five that I have shot I have never seen a pair above twenty-four and a half inches, but considerably longer specimens are to be obtained, and I have recently heard of a pair twenty-eight and a half inches. The horns are jet-black, of very fine grain, with a small central core, and being deeply notched on their anterior surface, they form perfect knife-handles and sword-hilts. When seen in profile, the forward inclination of the horns has a curious effect, the two appearing like a single horn; which has given rise to the belief that the Thibetan Antelope is the Tchirou or Unicorn Antelope mentioned by the Abbé Hue.

“Although living in such remote and sequestered regions, the Thibetan Antelope is wary in its habits. In the mornings and evenings it frequents the grassy margins of glacial streams, which frequently flow between steep banks gradually scarped out by the floods of centuries and now remote from the ordinary water’s edge. The ravines have, for the most part, been cut through gently sloping valleys; and on ascending their steep sides, slightly undulating plains will be found to stretch away, until they merge in the easy slopes of the rounded hills which bound the valley. To these plains the Antelope betake themselves during the day, and there they excavate hollows deep enough to conceal their bodies, from which, themselves unperceived, they can detect any threatening danger at a great distance. In addition to the concealment afforded by their ‘shelter pits,’ they have an additional safeguard against surprise in the constant mirage which prevails on these stony wastes during the bright hours of the day. This mirage not only distorts all visible objects in an extraordinary manner, but, like rippling water, refracts the rays of light to such a degree as to render objects altogether invisible at very short distances. It is, of course, worst near the surface of the ground, but on very hot days it attains a level of several feet; and I well remember, on one occasion, observing the slender horns of an Antelope gliding past me within three hundred yards, apparently borne on the surface of a glassy stream, in which the wearer of the horns was submerged and completely hidden from view! When Antelope are feeding on the grassy flats by the streams is the time when they may be easily approached; and then a knowledge of the ground, and of the habits of the animal, renders success in stalking them tolerably certain.”

How far the Chiru extends into the high plateau of Northern Asia beyond the Himalayas it is yet a little uncertain. Dr. Blanford, in his account of the mammals collected by Stoliczka during the Second Yarkand Mission (where excellent coloured figures of both sexes of this Antelope are given), tells us that it has been found in the Kuen-lun range, but has not been met with further north-west or west. It is also, as we are told by the great Russian traveller and naturalist Przewalski, a characteristic animal of the highlands of Northern Tibet. The “Orongo,” as it is here called by the Monguls and Tanguts, was first met with by the great traveller after crossing the Burkhan Buddha range, beyond which it was found distributed to the south as far as the Tang-la mountains. In Mr. Delmar Morgan’s translation of Przewalski’s travels will be found the following passages relating to the habits of this animal, of which, in the original Russian edition of the work, both sexes are figured:—

“The Orongo is found in small herds from five to twenty or forty head, rarely collecting in large troops of several hundred, and this only where the pasturage is good and plentiful. Though a few of the old bucks, usually accompanying every herd, are more cautious and experienced, the Orongos generally are not so wary in their habits. In their flight the males follow the herd as though to prevent straggling; whilst with the Dzerens and Kara-sultas this order is reversed. When in motion, either leisurely or at full speed, the Orongo holds its horns erect, which adds greatly to its appearance. When trotting—its usual pace—the legs move so quickly that at a distance they are invisible, and dogs or wolves are soon left behind. We arrived in Tibet during the breeding-season of these animals, which begins late in November and lasts a month.

“At this time the full-grown males are in a most exited state, taking little food and soon losing the fat which they had gained during summer. The buck soon forms his harem of ten to twenty wives, and these he jealously guards lest any of them should fall into the power of a rival. No sooner does he see an adversary approaching than he, the lawful lord of the herd, rushes to the encounter with head lowered, uttering short deep bleats. The combat is fierce, and the long sharp horns inflict terrible wounds, often causing the death of both antagonists. Should one feel his strength ebbing, he takes to flight pursued by his enemy, then suddenly wheeling round receives the latter on his horns. As a proof of the fury with which they fight, I remember shooting one of the combatants, who, to my surprise, continued the fight for several minutes after he had received his death-wound, and then suddenly expired. If a doe chance to stray from the herd, the buck immediately gives chase, and, bleating as he goes, tries to drive her back again. While his attention is thus engaged the others give him the slip, and pursuing first one, then another, he often loses his whole harem. At last, deserted by all, he gives vent to his fury and disgust by striking the ground with his hoofs, curving his tail, lowering his horns, and bleating defiance at his compeers. From morning until evening these scenes are constantly occurring, and there appears to be no bond of union between the male antelope and his does; to-day they consort with one buck, to-morrow with another.

“The rutting-season over, the Orongos again live peaceably with one another, the males and females often collecting in separate herds. We saw a troop of about 300 does in February in the valley of the Shuga; the young are dropped in July. The Orongo is fearless and will let the hunter openly approach within 300 yards, or even nearer. The report of firearms or the whistle of a bullet does not alarm it; it only shows surprise by walking quietly away, frequently stopping to look at the hunter. Like other antelopes it is extremely tenacious of life and will run a long way although wounded. They are not difficult to shoot, for besides showing no fear, they haunt rocky defiles in the mountains, where they may be easily stalked. I have fired as many as from one to two hundred shots at them in the course of the day, my bag, of course, varying a good deal with my luck in the long shots. The Orongo is held sacred by the Mongols and Tangutans, and lamas will not touch the meat, which, by the way, is excellent, particularly in autumn when the animal is fat. The blood is said to possess medicinal virtues, and the horns are used in charlatanism: Mongols tell fortunes and predict future events by the rings on these, and they also serve to mark out the burial-places, or more commonly the circles within which the bodies of deceased lamas are exposed; these horns are carried away in large numbers by pilgrims returning from Tibet, and are sold at high prices. Mongols tell you that a whip-handle made from one will in the hands of the rider prevent his steed from tiring.”

It is almost unnecessary to say that living specimens of the Chiru have never, as yet, been brought to Europe.

The British Museum contains a mounted specimen of an adult male of the Chiru, obtained by Mr. Mandelli in Sikim and presented by Dr. W. T. Blanford; also some specimens presented by Hodgson, and a number of very fine skulls and horns from Ladakh and Kumaon from the Hume Collection.

Our illustration (Plate L.), which represents a male of this animal in a snowstorm, has been put upon the stone by Mr. Smit from a coloured drawing prepared by Mr. Wolf under the directions of the late Sir Victor Brooke.

August, 1897.

Genus V. ANTIDORCAS.

General characters as in Gazella, but, as in Saiga tatarica alone of Ruminants, with only two lower premolars, and the upper anterior premolar reduced to half the size of the second. Back with a peculiar elongate evertible fold in the skin.

Skull with small but particularly deep anteorbital fossæ, no anteorbital vacuities, and very broad and open posterior nares.

Horns medium, lyrate, twisted inwards, with a double serpentine curvature, convex inwards and in front below, outwards and behind above. The points turned inwards or backwards.

Range of Genus. Africa south of the Zambesi.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. LI

Wolf del J Smit lith

Hanhart imp

The Springbuck

ANTIDORCAS EUCHORE.

Published by R H Porter

81. THE SPRINGBUCK.
ANTIDORCAS EUCHORE (Zimm.).
[PLATE LI.]

La Gazelle à bourse sur le dos, Allamand, in Schneider’s ed. of Buffon’s Hist. Nat., Suppl. iv. p. 142, pl. lx. (1778); id. Buff. H. N., Suppl. vi. p. 180 (Paris, 1782).

Antilope marsupialis, Zimm. Geogr. Gesch. ii. p. 427 (1780); Bechst. Syst. Uebers. vierf. Thiere, ii. p. 645 (1800).

Cemas marsupialis, Oken, Lehrb. Nat. iii. pt. 2, p. 738 (1816).

Springbok, Sparrm. K. Vet.-Ak. Handl. 1780, p. 275; id. Reise, p. 396, pl. viii. (1784); id. Engl. transl. ii. p. 83 (1786); Daniell, Afr. Scenery, no. 18 (1812).

Antilope euchore, “Forst.,” Zimm. Geogr. Gesch. iii. p. 269 (1783); Schr. Säug. pl. cclxxii. (1787); Shaw, Gen. Zool. ii. pt. 2, p. 314 (1801); G. Cuv. Dict. Sci. Nat. ii. p. 232 (1804); Licht. Mag. nat. Freund. vi. p. 169 (1814); G. Fisch. Zoogn. iii. p. 423 (1814); Afz. N. Act. Ups. vii. p. 220 (1815); Desm. N. Dict. d’H. N. (2) ii. p. 185 (1816); G. Cuv. R. A. i. p. 260 (1817); Goldf. Schr. Säug. v. p. 1189 (1818); Schinz, Cuv. Thierr. i. p. 387 (1821); Desmoul. Dict. Class. d’H. N. i. p. 441 (1822); Desm. Mamm. ii. p. 455 (1822); Burch. Trav. i. p. 290 (1822); id. List Quadr. pres. to B. M. p. 5 (1825) (Nugariep R.); H. Sm. Griff. An. K. iv. p. 208, v. p. 331 (1827); Less. Man. Mamm. p. 373 (1827); Licht. Darst. Säug. pl. vii. (♂♀) (1827); J. B. Fisch. Syn. Mamm. p. 461 (1829); Smuts, En. Mamm. Cap. p. 72 (1832); Less. Compl. Buff. x. p. 286 (1836); Laurill. Dict. Univ. d’H. N. i. p. 615 (1839); Gerv. Dict. Sci. Nat. i. p. 261 (1840); Jard. Nat. Misc. (1) vii. p. 213, pl. xxvii. (1842); Less. N. Tabl. R. A., Mamm. p. 176 (1812); Forst. Descr. Anim. p. 388 (1844); Wagn. Schr. Säug. Suppl. iv. p. 414 (1844), v. p. 407 (1855); Schinz, Syn. Mamm. ii. p. 400 (1845); id. Mon. Antil. p. 5, pl. iii. (1848); Temm. Esq. Zool. Guin. p. 193 (1853); Gieb. Säug. p. 309 (1853); Brehm, Thierl. iii. p. 212 (1880); Huet, Bull. Soc. Acclim. (4) iv. p. 485 (1887).

Cerophorus (Gazella) euchore, Blainv. Bull. Soc. Philom. p. 75 (1816).

Gazella euchore, A. Sm. S. Afr. Quart. J. ii. p. 191 (1834); Harr. Wild Anim. S. Afr. pl. iii. (♂ ♀) (1840); Sund. K. Vet.-Ak. Handl. 1842, pp. 201 & 243 (1843); Gray, List Mamm. B. M. p. 160 (1843); id. Cat. Ost. B. M. pp. 56 & 145 (1847); id. Knowsl. Men. p. 6 (1850); Turner, P. Z. S. 1850, p. 168; Brooke, P. Z. S. 1873, p. 550; Drumm. Large Game S. Afr. p. 426 (1875); Buckley, P. Z. S. 1876, pp. 282 & 291; Bocage, P. Z. S. 1878, p. 741 (Huilla, Angola); Selous, P. Z. S. 1881, p. 757; Scl. List Anim. Z. S. (8) p. 142 (1883), (9) p. 156 (1896); Flow. & Gars. Cat. Coll. Surg. ii. p. 264 (1884); Bryden, Kloof and Karroo, p. 220, figs. ♀ (1889); W. Scl. Cat. Mamm. Calc. Mus. ii. p. 162 (1891); Flow. & Lyd. Mamm. p. 342 (1891); Ward, Horn Meas. (1) p. 122 (1892), (2) p. 163 (1896); Nicolls & Egl. Sportsm. S. Afr. p. 29, pl. vi. fig. 20 (1892); Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 238 (1893).

Antidorcas euchore, Sund. Pecora, K. Vet.-Ak. Handl. 1845, p. 271 (1847); id. Hornschuch’s Transl., Arch. Skand. Beitr. ii. p. 267; Reprint, p. 87 (1848); Gray, P. Z. S. 1850, p. 116; id. Cat. Ung. B. M. p. 63 (1852); Gerr. Cat. Bones Mamm. B. M. p. 233 (1862); Blyth, Cat. Mamm. Mus. As. Soc. p. 171 (1863); Fitz. SB. Wien, lix. pt. 1, p. 158 (1869); Gray, Cat. Rum. B. M. p. 40 (1872); id. Hand-l. Rum. B. M. p. 109 (1873); Jent. Cat. Ost. Leyd. Mus. (Mus. Pays-Bas, ix.) p. 169 (1887); id. Cat. Mamm. Leyd. Mus. (op. cit. xi.) p. 137 (1892).

Antilope saccata, Bodd. Elench. Anim. p. 142 (1785).

Capra pygargus, Thunb. Resa, ii. p. 28 (1789), Engl. Transl. ii. p. 24 (1793).

Antilope pygarga, Thunb. Mém. Ac. Pétersb. iii. p. 315 (1811) (and no doubt of many other earlier authors; nec Pall.).

Antilope saltans, Kerr, Linn. An. K. p. 312 (1792).

Antilope saltatrix, Link, Beytr. p. 79 (1795) (nec Bodd.).

Antilope saliens and A. dorsata, “Lac.,” Desm. N. Dict. d’H. N. (1) xxiv. Tabl. p. 33 (1804).

Vernacular Names:—Springbuck of English; Springbok or Prongbok of Dutch; Tsebe (A. Smith) or Umegi (Drummond) of Kaffirs. Insaypee of Bechuanas; Eetsaypee of Makalakas (Selous).

Height at withers 31 or 32 inches. General colour bright rufous fawn; a strongly marked, dark, lateral band present, as in many Gazelles. Face pure white, a narrow fawn-coloured line running forwards to the muzzle from the openings of the anteorbital glands on each side. Crown and centre of forehead fawn-coloured like the neck and back. Ears long and pointed, their backs white or pale fawn. Posterior back with a strongly contrasted pure white line, the white hairs of which are placed in a fold of the skin, which fold is everted when the animal is excited, and then forms a prominent white crest; rump white, in continuation with the dorsal line; tail also white basally, black and crested terminally. Belly pure white. Limbs fawn-coloured externally, white on their inner sides and behind.

Skull-dimensions of a male:—Basal length 7·8 inches, greatest breadth 3·7, muzzle to orbit 4·7.

Horns attaining a length of about 14 or 15 inches round the curves, one specimen being recorded as long as 19 inches.

Female similar to male, but horns smaller and not so strongly ringed at the base.

Hab. South Africa, south of the Zambesi, extending northwards on the west to Mossamedes.

The Springbuck is, no doubt, very closely allied to the Gazelles; but in view of its peculiar dentition, which, as we have pointed out above (p. 53), is unique in the bovine family, and of the remarkable dorsal fold of skin, which is not found in any of its allies, we have thought it advisable to adopt for it the generic term Antidorcas, first provisionally suggested for it by Sundevall in 1847, and subsequently employed by many naturalists. The locality of the Springbuck is also quite distinct from that of the typical Gazelles, which are essentially a northern group, no true Gazellæ being met with until we advance as far north as German East Africa.

This Antelope, with its bright colour and lively movements, as may be easily imagined, quickly attracted the notice of the early Dutch settlers at the Cape and received from them the appropriate name of “Springbok,” from the extraordinary springs and leaps which it makes in running. The first scientific account of it published appears to be that given by Allamand in Schneider’s edition of the ‘Histoire Naturelle’ of Buffon, published at Amsterdam about 1778. In the fourth volume of the ‘Supplement’ of this rather rare work, for the privilege of consulting which we are much indebted to Sir Edmund Loder, will be found (under the head of an addition to the article on Gazelles issued in the twelfth volume of the original work) described and figured “La Gazelle à bourse sur le dos,” as Allamand named the Springbuck. Allamand informs us that his figure and description (which unmistakably relate to this animal) were taken from a specimen then living in the menagerie of the Prince of Orange, which had been brought from the Cape by Capt. Gordon, and was the only survivor of twelve examples of this animal with which Captain Gordon had started for Europe.

Upon Allamand’s “Gazelle à bourse” Zimmermann, in the second volume of his ‘Geographische Geschichte,’ issued in 1780, established his Antilope marsupialis, adding a Latin diagnosis and a shortened translation of Allamand’s description. In the meantime, however, another name seems to have been proposed for the same animal by Forster, who, as we are informed by Zimmermann in the third volume of his ‘Geographische Geschichte,’ had called the Springbuck Antilope euchore. This no doubt was done in the famous ‘Descriptiones Animalium,’ which, although generally accessible in manuscript to the naturalists of the day, and frequently quoted by them, was not published until 1844. However, as Forster’s name for the Springbuck has been accepted nearly universally by subsequent naturalists, we do not now propose to change the name by which this animal has been known for so many years.

The immediately succeeding writers added little or nothing to our knowledge of this Antelope until about 1829, when Lichtenstein, in the second number of his ‘Darstellung der Thiere,’ gave coloured figures of both its sexes under the name “Antilope euchore, Forster,” from specimens in the Berlin Museum procured by him or his assistants in Cafferland.

A few years later Cornwallis Harris visited South Africa. In his great work on the results of his journey subsequently published, this celebrated sportsman and naturalist devotes his third plate to the illustration of a group of Springbucks, which he describes at the period of his writing (1840) as then still abundant in the Colony and “distributed over the arid plains beyond it in unlimited herds.” “Amongst the many striking novelties,” Cornwallis Harris writes, “which present themselves to the eye of the traveller in Southern Africa there are, perhaps, few objects more conspicuous or more beautiful than the dancing herds of graceful Springbucks which speckle the broad plains of the interior.”

“Matchless in the symmetry of its form, the Springbok is measurelessly the most elegant and remarkable species of the comprehensive group to which it pertains. The dazzling contrast betwixt the lively cinnamon of its back and the snowy whiteness of the lower parts is agreeably heightened by the intensely rich chestnut bands which traverse the flanks—its dark beaming eye, with its innocent and lamb-like expression of face, and the showy folds of gossamer on the haunches—displayed or concealed at the animal’s volition—combining to render it one of the most beautiful objects in the animal creation. As the traveller advances over the trackless expanse, hundreds of this delicately formed antelope bound away on either side of his path with meteor-like and sportive velocity, winging their bird-like flight by a quick succession of those singularly elastic leaps which have given rise to its colonial appellation, and which enable it to surpass, as well in swiftness as in grace, almost every other mammiferous quadruped.

“But although frequently found herding by itself, the Springbok is usually detected in the society of Gnoos, Quaggas, Ostriches, or Blesboks. Fleet as the wind, and thoroughly conscious of its own speed, it mingles with their motley herds, sauntering about with an easy careless gait, occasionally with outstretched neck approaching some coquettish doe, and spreading its own glittering white folds so as to effect a sudden and complete metamorphosis of exterior from fawn-colour to white. Wariest of the wary, however, the Springboks are ever the first to take the alarm, and to lead the retreating column. Pricking their taper ears, and elevating their graceful little heads upon the first appearance of any strange object, a dozen or more trot nimbly off to a distance, and having gazed impatiently for an instant to satisfy themselves of the actual presence of an enemy,—putting their white noses to the ground, they begin, in colonial phraseology, to ‘pronken’ or make ‘a brave show.’ Unfurling the snowy folds on their haunches so as to display around the elevated scut, a broad white gossamer disk, shaped like the spread tail of a peacock, away they all go with a succession of strange perpendicular bounds, rising with curved loins into the air, as if they had been struck with battledores—rebounding to the height of ten or twelve feet with the elasticity of corks thrown against a hard floor; vaulting over each other’s backs with depressed heads and stiffened limbs, as if engaged in a game of leap-frog; and after appearing for a second as if suspended in the air,—clearing at a single spring from ten to fifteen feet of ground without the smallest perceptible exertion. Down come all four feet together with a single thump, and nimbly spurning the earth beneath, away they soar again, as if about to take flight—invariably clearing a road or beaten track by a still higher leap than all—as if their natural disposition to regard man as an enemy indicated them to mistrust even the ground upon which he had trodden.

“The ‘trek bokken’—as the Colonists are wont to term the immense migratory swarms of these antelopes which, to the destruction of every green herb, occasionally inundate the abodes of civilization—not only form one of the most remarkable features in the Zoology of Southern Africa, but may also be reckoned amongst the most extraordinary examples of the fecundity of animal life. To form any estimate of their numbers on such occasions would be perfectly impossible—the havoc committed in their onward progress falling nothing short of the ravages of a wasting swarm of locusts.

“Pouring down, like the devastating curse of Egypt, from their native plains in the interior whence they have been driven, after protracted drought and by the failure of the stagnant pools on which they have relied, whole legions of Springboks abandon the parched soil and throng with one accord to deluge and lay waste the cultivated regions around the Cape. So effectually does the van of the vast column destroy every vestige of verdure, that the rear is often reduced to positive starvation.

“Ere the morning’s dawn cultivated fields, which the evening before appeared proud of their promising verdure, despite of every precaution that can be taken, are reaped level with the ground; and the grazier, despoiled of his lands, is driven to seek pasture for his flocks elsewhere, until the bountiful thunder-clouds re-animating nature restore vegetation to the burnt-up country. Then these unwelcome visitors whose ranks, during their short but destructive sojourn, have been thinned both by man and beast, retire instinctively to their secluded abodes, to renew their depredations when necessity shall again compel them.”

Although not still met with in the countless thousands described by Cornwallis Harris, the Springbuck, we are pleased to be able to say, is even now abundant in many parts of the Cape Colony, and Springbuck shooting is still one of the recognized sports of its inhabitants and of visitors to Southern Africa who go in search of game. Mr. H. A. Bryden, in his well-known volume ‘Kloof and Karroo,’ devotes a whole chapter to the delights of Springbuck shooting, and tells us that of late years large tracts of waste land in the Colony have been fenced in in order to preserve these Antelopes. For example, as the ‘Graaf Reinet Advertiser,’ of November 1886, informs us, Shirlands, the property of Mr. John Priest, of that district, was, twelve to thirteen years ago, a piece of waste land abandoned to squatters. Now there are 16,000 morgen (more than 32,000 acres) fenced in with wire. Within this fence there are fully a thousand Springboks where formerly only a few remained “harassed and hunted to death by impoverished lazy squatters.”

In the Cape Colony Mr. W. L. Sclater, the Director of the South African Museum, Cape Town, kindly informs us that in the west of the Colony the Springbuck is met with in Namaqualand, Clanwilliam, Beaufort West, Prince Albert, and the adjoining districts. In the middle of the Colony it is found in Uitenhaag, Graaff Reinet, Colesberg, Albert, and Queenstown, but is rare in East Albany. On the north it occurs in Great Namaqualand and Damaraland, also in Kimberley, Barkly West, and Herbert. But it must be understood that it is mostly confined in all these districts to those farms of the Dutch and English settlers where it is preserved, and that permission to shoot it must on all occasions be obtained. The same is the case in the Orange Free State and Transvaal. In Bechuanaland, being wholly unprotected, the Springbuck has in recent years been much shot down, except on the open arid flats north and south of the Botletle and the neighbourhood of the great Makari-kari Salt-pan, where Messrs. Nicolls and Eglington say it still roams in large herds.

As regards the northern limit of the Springbuck, it certainly does not cross the Zambesi in any place so far as we have been able to ascertain.

Fig. 53.

Horns of Springbuck, ♂ and ♀.

Mr. F. C. Selous (P. Z. S. 1881, p. 757) says that its northern range is bounded on the east by the thick forests which run east and west south of the Mababe River. Westwards, as already stated, it occurs in the district of Lake Ngami and throughout Damaraland up to the Portuguese province of Mossamedes, whence specimens have been forwarded to the Lisbon Museum by their energetic collector M. d’Anchieta.

Writing quite recently to Sclater, Mr. J. ffolliott Darling gives the following notes:—

“The Springbuck does not range up so far north as Mashonaland; but I have shot them in Griqualand West, the Transvaal, and the Orange Free State, also in Bechuanaland, where the most northerly point I found them in 1890 was south of the Macloutsie River in the British Protectorate. I was for several years in various parts of Griqualand East, but never saw a Springbuck, though there are large flats suitable for them, on which Oribis abound.

“When protected they become very numerous, so much so as to scarcely leave any grass for the sheep in some places; one farmer told me that he reckoned that the Springbok cost him £200 a year.

“One curious thing, well known to hunters, but I do not recollect ever seeing it in print, is that the white patch of hair on the back smells like honey.

“I have several times coursed Springbuck with good greyhounds, but never caught one; they weary out the dogs playing before starting to run. If one buck be found by himself greyhounds can catch him; but some people say that if you find one alone it means that he is sick, and that is the reason that he can be caught. I know some prominent coursing men do not like their dogs to run after Springbuck, as too frequent failures to kill discourage the dogs, and often when run into they will turn and fight the greyhound, which, if timid, may be spoiled thereby and become afraid to attack other antelopes.

“However, one friend, in whom I have every reliance, told me that a large and very strong greyhound of his on one occasion separated a fine Springbuck ram from a small herd and killed him single-handed.

“Of course the jumping powers of this buck are well known and how they will skip across a road 50 ft. wide without any trouble. The habit of spreading out the hair on the back, so as to expose the white patch more prominently when frightened, is very curious, as in the case of being hunted by dogs it makes the animal more easily perceived and followed in long grass or scrub.”

White and Albino varieties are not so frequently met with amongst the Bovidæ as in some other groups of mammals. But the ‘Johannesburg Times’ of January 22nd, 1897, informs us that a perfectly white Springbuck, caught in the Orange Free State, and supposed to be about eleven months old, was at that time being exhibited in Johannesburg by Messrs. Colquhoun and Hill, of Jeppe Street. Such a novelty as a white Springbuck was previously quite unknown in the Transvaal. This communication was sent to us accompanied by a photograph of the animal taken from life, from which it would appear that its colour was absolutely of a spotless white.

The Springbuck, although not unfrequently seen in the Zoological Gardens of Europe, is, as might be supposed, from its free and active habits, somewhat impatient of captivity and does not thrive in confinement except in occasional instances. The Zoological Society acquired their first specimen (by purchase) on July 9th, 1852, and, as will be seen by reference to their published Lists of Animals, others have been subsequently received at short intervals since that date. At the time we are writing there is a fine pair in the Society’s Gardens, deposited by H.R.H. the Prince of Wales in March, 1893, which are still doing well. Dr. Wünderlich, Director of the Zoological Garden of Cologne, has kindly furnished us with notes upon a pair of this Antelope which he bought on the 13th May, 1896, from Herr Reiche, of Alfeld. They bred on the 24th May last year, and after a period of 171 days a young one of the female sex was born on the 12th November last. The young one at birth was 45 cm. (about 17¾ English inches) in height, and generally of a yellowish-grey colouring. The side stripe was rather darker, but by no means so clearly defined as it is in the adult animal. The under surface and inner sides of the limbs were white, as in the adult. On the face a dark stripe from the eye to the corner of the mouth was visible, but the cheeks and chin generally were yellowish grey like the sides of the body. The little animal did well in company with its mother at first, and after 15 days began to eat corn. Unfortunately, however, it did not continue to thrive, and died on December 21st, when about 40 days old.

The flesh of the Springbuck is much esteemed by the epicures of the Cape Colony, and has been occasionally brought to London in a refrigerator for consumption here. In the ‘Field’ for 1892 (vol. lxxx. p. 390) will be found an account of its successful importation by Messrs. Brooks, of Leadenhall Market, and of the high appreciation it met with by those who tried the “venison,” which was pronounced to be “in good condition, not the least high, and tasting not unlike Chamois.”

Our figure of the adult male Springbuck, with a herd of these animals in the distance, has been prepared by Mr. Smit from an original sketch by Wolf, which is now in the possession of Sir Douglas Brooke, and has been kindly lent to us for examination.

There is a good stuffed specimen of an adult male Springbuck in the Gallery of the British Museum. It was obtained by Mr. F. C. Selous at Mahemfontein, in the Orange Free State, in 1896, and was presented to the collection by that gentleman. From a pencil-note on the back of Mr. Wolf’s sketch it would appear to have been taken from a specimen of the head of this species formerly exhibited in the same Museum. The National Collection has also some skins, skulls, and horns of the Springbuck from various parts of South Africa; but good skulls of this Antelope are still desiderata to the National Collection, and a series of them, with dates and localities, would be much appreciated.

August, 1897.

Genus VI. GAZELLA.

Size medium, but with a considerable range of variation. General form normal; the muzzle simple, neither expanded as in Pantholops nor elongated as in Saiga; the neck of ordinary length, and the back without any evertible fold as in Antidorcas. Coloration ordinarily sandy, with a white belly, the face generally marked with dark and light streaks; streaks also generally present on the flanks and rump. Knee-brushes usually present. Tail short or of medium length.

Skull generally with shallow anteorbital fossæ corresponding to the anteorbital glands, but occasionally—in the procaprine section—without any trace of them. Premolars 3/3, as usual in the Bovines.

Horns generally present in both sexes, the females of the first four species alone being without them. In the male the horns are strong, prominently ribbed, and generally of medium length, about the length of the head, but occasionally considerably longer. With the exception of their tips they are curved backwards, so as to be convex forwards below, while their ends are commonly more or less recurved forwards or upwards. The degrees of curvature seem to be fairly constant within the species, and to afford very fair specific characters. On the other hand, in the female the horns are slender, straighter, and shorter than in the male, very variable in direction, and as a rule showing little of the characteristic curvature peculiar to the male of each species, although there is a certain correspondence between the lengths of the horns in the two sexes.

Range of the Genus. Northern and Eastern Africa, and Western and Central Asia to Mongolia and British India.

The genus Gazella contains the great majority of the members of the present subfamily, and forms a very natural and easily defined group. All the species are lightly built and delicate animals, and are among the best known of all the Antelopes, on account of their beauty and the fact that they are common in confinement, so that every zoological garden is always well provided with examples of them. In the Zoological Society’s Gardens at the present time no less than ten species are represented.

The genus Gazella was always a favourite one with Sir Victor Brooke, who devoted much time to its elucidation, and published in 1873 a monograph of it, which up to the present time has been the standard work on the subject. From this monograph we venture to quote the following paragraphs which explain the nomenclature of the characteristic markings of the Gazelles: they also give an indication of the difficulties to be met with in working out a genus which, while the largest contained in the present work, is remarkable for the close resemblance of the different species to one another and for the absence of characters which will enable them to be readily separated:—

“For the sake of convenience, and the avoidance of constant repetition, and also to throw into relief the traces of genetic affinity afforded by coloration, I will describe the typical ground-plan which may be seen underlying each variation, the uniformity of the arrangement of the more salient and characteristic markings (where they appear) throughout the group clearly showing the existence of such a plan. To each of these more prominent features, indicating what may be provisionally called generic coloration, I will apply a definite name, which I shall make use of in the following descriptions.

The anterior facial region in Gazelles, from the base of each horn to the muzzle, is cut off from the sides of the face on both sides by white streaks, which, starting externally to the base of each horn, run downwards to within two inches of the nostrils; the former I shall call the ‘central facial band,’ the latter the ‘light facial streaks.’ From the corner of the suborbital gland, running downwards immediately below the light facial streak, and of about equal width, is a dark line; this I shall refer to as the ‘dark facial streak.’ Bordering the white of the belly on each side, and extending from above and behind the ulna to above and in front of the patella, are two bands, the lower of which is darker, the upper lighter than the colour of the back and flanks. The former I shall speak of as the ‘dark lateral band,’ the latter the ‘light lateral band.’ Lastly, bordering the white of the rump is frequently seen a narrow indefinite darkish band, which may be conveniently called the ‘pygal band.’ The difficulty of expressing differences dependent to a large extent upon shades of colour and texture of hair sufficiently sharply to give a just impression of the effect produced by such differences upon the eye may cause the distinction of some of the forms below mentioned to appear doubtful. I can only say that upon occasions when I have had ample opportunity of subsequently verifying my identification, I have never experienced any difficulty in referring specimens entirely new to me to their proper name and habitat. The descriptions must be taken as applying to thoroughly typical specimens, the intensity of the markings and length and curvature of the horns being subject to great individual variation.”

Since Sir Victor Brooke wrote his monograph of the Gazelles, many species only known to him by descriptions or by imperfect specimens have become represented in our National Museum by complete examples, while several additional species have been discovered. Our arrangement of the species is therefore necessarily different from his, but is, we fear, still very far from being perfect, as more and better specimens of most of the forms are still wanted before their exact geographical distribution, their extent of variation, and their true relationships to each other can be satisfactorily worked out.

As already noted, we have removed from the genus Gazella, under the name Antidorcas, the South-African Springbuck, which Sir Victor Brooke included in it. This being eliminated, the 25 species which we are prepared to recognize as distinct may be arranged as follows:—

• A. Tail quite short. No Gazelline face-markings. Females without horns.
• a. Horns strongly curved backwards. Skull 7 in. or less in basal length.
• a¹. Horns not hooked at tip. (Tibet.)  82. G. picticaudata.
• b¹. Horns hooked at tip. (Mongolia.)  83. G. przewalskii.
• b. Horns but little curved backwards, not hooked at tip. Skull about 9 in. in basal length. (N. China.)  84. G. gutturosa.
• B. Tail of average length, its terminal half generally more or less crested with black. Face-markings present. Females (except in G. subgutturosa) with horns.
• a. Upper part of face white (at least in old age), interrupting the central facial band.
• a¹. No horns in female: size larger. (Central and Western Asia.)  85. G. subgutturosa.
• b¹. Horns present in female: size smaller. (Arabia.)  86. G. marica.
• b. Central dark facial band uninterrupted by white above. Horns present in the female.
• a¹. Dark colour of back not invaded by white of rump.
• a². Dark lateral band indistinctly marked, not strong and blackish.
• a³. Tip of horns slightly curved inwards or upwards, not bent in to a right angle.
• a⁴. Horns of medium length.
• a⁵. Horns truly lyrate, the middle portion twisted outwards, the tips reapproaching each other. (Algeria, Egypt, Palestine.)  87. G. dorcas.
• b⁵. Horns not truly lyrate, more or less evenly diverging upwards.
• a⁶. Top of muzzle ordinarily with a black spot on it.
• a⁷. Nose simple.
• a⁸. Larger: hair rough. (Algeria.)  88. G. cuvieri.
• b⁸. Smaller: hair smooth: darker. (Arabia.)  89. G. arabica.
• c⁸. Smaller: hair smooth: lighter. (India and S. Persia.)  90. G. bennetti.
• b⁷. Nose with a flabby corrugated elevation on it. (Somaliland.)  91. G. spekei.
• b⁶. Top of muzzle without a black spot. (Somaliland.)  92. G. pelzelni.
• b⁴. Horns long and very slender. Colours very pale. (Algeria and Egypt.)  93. G. leptoceros.
• b³. Tip of horns hooked inwards or upwards, nearly or quite to a right angle.
• a⁴. General colour pale fawn, the lateral band and other markings also fawn. (Nubia.)  94. G. Isabella.
• b⁴. General colour brownish fawn, the lateral band blackish. (Muscat.)  95. G. muscatensis.
• b². Dark lateral band black and strongly marked.
• a³. Horns abruptly hooked inwards at the ends. (Abyssinia.)  96. G. tilonura.
• b³. Horns not abruptly hooked at end.
• a⁴. No nose-spot; face uniform rufous.
• a⁵. Size smaller. (Senegambia.)  97. G. rufifrons.
• b⁵. Size larger. (Algeria.)  98. G. rufina.
• b⁴. Nose-spot black. (Masai-land.)  99. G. thomsoni.
• b¹. Dark colour of back more or less invaded by white of rump.
• a². A dark pygal band present.
• a³. Dark colour of back continued in middle line on to the top of the tail. Size smaller. (E. African Coast.)  100. G. petersi.
• b³. Dark colour of back shut off from tail, which is enclosed in the white anal disk. Size larger.
• a⁴. Dark lateral bands obsolete, or, in youth, present below the light lateral band only. (Interior of East Africa.)  101. G. granti.
• b⁴. Dark bands present both above and below the light lateral band, uniting with each other behind. (Northern British E. Africa.)  102. G. notata.
• b². No dark pygal band.
• a³. Tail black-tipped. Horns hooked inwards. (Abyssinian Coast and Somaliland.)  103. G. soemmerringi.
• b³. Tail all white, or merely tipped with fawn. Horns hooked upwards and forwards.
• a⁴. Neck and anterior back alone rufous; lines of demarcation indistinct. (Kordofan.)  104. G. ruficollis.
• b⁴. Rufous extending over body and flanks, well defined from the white.
• a⁵. Sides of thighs white, the rufous of body not joining that of hind legs. (Senegal.)  105. G. dama.
• b⁵. Sides of thighs and legs rufous, continuous with that of body. (Morocco.)  106. G. mhorr.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. LII

Wolf del Smit lith

Hanhart imp

The Tibetan Gazelle.

GAZELLA PICTICAUDATA.

Published by R. H. Porter

82. THE TIBETAN GAZELLE.
GAZELLA PICTICAUDATA (Hodgs.).
[PLATE LII.]

Procapra picticaudata, Hodgs. J. A. S. B. xv. p. 334, pl. ii. (1846), xvi. p. 696 (1847); Blyth, J. A. S. B. xvi. p. 725 (1847); Gray, P. Z. S. 1850, p. 116; Horsf. Cat. Mamm. Mus. E. I. C. p. 169 (1851); Gray, Cat. Ung. B. M. p. 55 (1852); Hooker, Himalayan Journ. ii. p. 157 (1854); Adams, P. Z. S. 1858, p. 523; Gerr. Cat. Bones Mamm. B. M. p. 232 (1862); Blyth, Cat. Mamm. Mus. As. Soc. p. 173 (1863); Gray, P. Z. S. 1867, p. 245, fig. (skull); Fitz. SB. Wien, lix. p. 161 (1869); Kinloch, Large Game Shooting, p. 10 (1869); Blanf. J. A. S. B. xli. pt. 2, p. 39 (1872); Gray, Cat. Rum. B. M. p. 38 (1872); id. Hand-l. Rum. B. M. p. 105 (1873); Przewalski, Mongolia (Russian ed.), pl. i. figs. 2 & 3 (♂ ♀) (1875); Blanf. P. Z. S. 1876, p. 634; Jent. Cat. Ost. Leyd. Mus. (Mus. Pays-Bas, ix.) p. 136 (1887); id. Cat. Mamm. Leyd. Mus. (op. cit. xi.) p. 167 (1892).

Antilope picticaudata, Wagn. Schr. Säug. Suppl. v. p. 408 (1855); Przewalski, Mongolia (Morgan’s Engl. Transl.), ii. p. 208 (1876).

Gazella picticaudata, Brooke, P. Z. S. 1873, p. 547; Sternd. Mamm. Ind. p. 467 (1884); W. Scl. Cat. Mamm. Ind. Mus. ii. p. 161 (1891); Blanf. Faun. Brit. Ind., Mamm. p. 529 (1891); Flow. & Lyd. Mamm. p. 342 (1891); Ward, Horn Meas. (1) p. 120 (1892), (2) p. 161 (1896); Blanf. P. Z. S. 1893, p. 449; Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 183 (1893); Percy, Badm. Big Game Shooting, ii. p. 342 (1894).

Vernacular Names:—Ragoa and Goa (Hodgson); Ata-dzeren (Przewalski); all of the Tibetans.

Height at withers about 25 inches. Fur close and thick. General body-colour pale fawn, darkening posteriorly and becoming almost rufous brown along the edges of the white anal patch. No lateral nor pygal bands. Face without any trace of the ordinary Gazelline markings, coloured like the body, or the top of the muzzle sometimes brown; hairs on the sides of the muzzle elongated, so as to form a sort of lateral tuft, which extends backwards under the eyes. Ears short, narrow, pointed, well haired, coloured like the body. Rump with a prominent white patch surrounding the base of the tail. Tail quite short, projecting little beyond the fur, its end black or dark fawn. Limbs white or very pale fawn; no knee-tufts.

“In the summer the coat is short and of a slaty grey colour” (Brooke).

Skull rather broad in proportion to its length. Anteorbital fossæ practically obsolete. Nasals broad behind, evenly tapering forwards. Basal length 6·4 inches, greatest breadth 3·75, muzzle to orbit 4·0.

Horns slender, of median length, much compressed laterally, very closely ringed. With the exception of their tips (2–3 inches), after starting vertically, they curve evenly and strongly backwards, diverging laterally but little. Tips gently curved upwards and slightly inwards, reapproaching each other above to a certain extent.

Female. Similar to the male but without horns.

Hab. Plateau of Tibet and adjoining districts of Central Asia.

Like many other Himalayan and Tibetan animals this Antelope first became known to science from the researches of the great Indian naturalist and antiquarian, Bryan Houghton Hodgson, British Resident at the capital of Nepal. Hodgson described it in 1846, in the ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ as Procapra picticaudata, and gave a very recognizable figure to accompany his letterpress. He wrote of it as follows:—

“The exceedingly graceful little animal, which is the subject of our present description, is called by the Tibetans Rágóá, or Góá simply, and they allege that it is found generally throughout the plains of middle and eastern Tibet. But those plains, it must be remembered, are, for the most part, broken by deep ravines or low bare hills, and it is in such situations, more especially, that the Góá dwells, either solitarily or in pairs, or at most in small families, never in large flocks. The species is said to breed but once a year, and to produce ordinarily but one young one at birth, rarely two; and it is added that it browses rather than grazes, preferring aromatic shrubs and shoots to grass, of which latter, indeed, its habitat is nearly void. I have not heard that the Góá is ever tamed, but it is killed for the sake of its flesh, which is esteemed excellent, and is free from all caprine odour, even in the mature males.”

Hodgson also entered into the structural peculiarities of this Antelope, which he described at full length. It is quite evident that, as pointed out by him, the present Gazelle, as also the two allied species (G. przewalskii and G. gutturosa), present certain points of difference from the rest of the group, and that there was, therefore, some justification for Hodgson’s proposal of the generic term “Procapra,” although we do not think it necessary to use it. These three species agree among themselves in the females not possessing horns, in the absence of anteorbital glands, and the corresponding absence of a fossa in the skull, in having no brushes on the knees, and in several other characters, which show that they are really more closely connected to each other than to the more typical Gazelles. Nevertheless we think that, on the whole, it is best to include them in the genus Gazella, as no one of these characters is absolutely confined to them. Thus G. subgutturosa, often, though wrongly, placed with them, has no horns in the female, while in other characters it is a true Gazella, and several species besides these three are without knee-brushes, while the anteorbital fossæ in others are so shallow as to be practically non-existent.

Fig. 54.

Skull and horns of the Tibetan Gazelle.

(P. Z. S. 1867, p. 245.)

Soon after his discovery of the Goa, Hodgson forwarded specimens of it to the British Museum, and the species was included in Gray’s catalogues as Procapra picticaudata. Under this name also Gray figured a skull and pair of horns of this Gazelle in 1867, in order to point out its differences from the allied Asiatic form, Gazella gutturosa. This figure (fig. 54, p. 73), by the kind permission of the Zoological Society of London, we are now able to reproduce.

In October 1849, Sir Joseph Hooker, as related in his ‘Himalayan Journals’ (ii. p. 157), met with the Goa feeding on the short grass near the Cholamoo Lake in Sikim, at an elevation of 17,000 feet above the sea-level, and in other adjoining localities on the Donkia Pass between Sikim and Tibet. Through his kindness and that of his publishers we are enabled to introduce the illustration of this striking scene (fig. 55) prepared for his well-known work.

Fig. 55.

Goa Antelopes on the Donkia Pass.

(Hooker’s ‘Himalayan Journals,’ ii. p. 139.)

Other travellers and sportsmen have also noticed the Goa or Tibetan Gazelle in Ladak and on the frontiers of Tibet. But by far the most complete account of the habits and ways of life of this Antelope is that given by Major-General Kinloch in the various editions of his excellent work on Large-Game Shooting in Tibet.

To the east of Ladak, General Kinloch tells us, in the country that lies between the Upper Indus and the Sutlej, are vast expanses of undulating hills and valleys of great elevation utterly destitute of forest and with but scanty indications of vegetation. The greater part of these wild uplands would appear at first to be a perfect desert, but, as a matter of fact, on closer inspection, it will be found that there is hardly a slope, however rocky, or an expanse of sand, however thirsty-looking, where an occasional tuft of grass or bunch of sweet-scented herb may not be found, while wherever streams of water exist their banks are often ornamented by the greenest of turf and studded with flowers of the most brilliant hues. This bleak country, General Kinloch continues, the elevation of which varies from 13,000 to 18,000 feet, is the home of the Goa, which is to be found there scattered about in small parties usually varying from two or three to about a dozen in number, and in certain localities is decidedly plentiful. They are not generally very shy, but will seldom allow the hunter to approach openly within shot.

In 1866 General Kinloch made an expedition to the Tsomoriri Lake in this district, mainly with a view of hunting the Goa. We subjoin an account of his adventures, extracted from his work:—

“In 1866 I went to the Tsomoriri Lake and Hanlé, the Goa being one of my principal inducements to go there. I was accompanied by a friend, and on the 2nd of June we pitched our camp at the corner of the lake and ascended the plateau above. We had not gone far before we discovered some animals feeding at a distance, and the telescope showed them to be Goa. We made a most careful stalk, and got within easy shot, but the small size of the animals deceived us in our estimate of distance, and we both missed. Soon afterwards we saw some more Goa, but I again missed a fair chance. We then separated, but I could see nothing for a long time; at length I caught a glimpse of the heads of two or three Goas just as they were disappearing over a ridge; I followed them, and shot a doe through the body as it was galloping away. A greyhound which I had with me gave chase, and ran into it after a long course. The next day I determined to kill a buck, so I ascended the plateau very early in the morning; I soon discovered some Goa at a great distance, but after stalking to within seventy yards, I found that they were all does and young ones. I therefore would not fire at them, but lay watching the graceful little animals with much interest. Before long they caught sight of me, but being unable to make me out distinctly, they advanced towards me, occasionally rising on their hind legs to obtain a better view. I at length arose and showed myself, upon which they made off. Further on I found some does, and shortly afterwards three bucks, but in a place where they could not be stalked, so I sent a man round to drive them. The driver failed, the Goas going off in the wrong direction, but the man who went after them informed me that he had seen five others, and pointed out the direction in which they had gone. I crossed the plain, and saw them on the slopes at the other side, and after a détour, found myself on the hill-side straight above them. I watched them for some time as they fed along the foot of the hill: at last they approached a deep but narrow ravine which ran down the hill; I entered this, which afforded me capital cover, and on reaching the plain and looking over the bank, I saw the Goas quietly feeding within about a hundred yards. Resting my rifle on the bank, I fired very steadily at the best buck, but to my surprise missed with both barrels, owing to over-estimating the distance. Dropping behind the bank, I reloaded, and on again looking over was astonished to see the Goas still feeding in the same place. I was more successful this time, wounding one with the first barrel, and killing another with the second. Even now the Goas did not move far, and I had time to fire two more bullets, which, however, missed. Meanwhile I had sent a man to bring my dog, and on his arrival I slipped him at the Goas, but the wounded one seemed to recover completely, and it soon distanced the greyhound. The one I had killed had a very beautiful pair of horns.”

Besides the experiences of the travellers and sportsmen from the Indian side, the only published record concerning the Tibetan Gazelle, so far as we know, is that of the great Russian explorer Przewalski, who, after treating of the “Orongo” of Northern Tibet (Pantholops hodgsoni), mentions the present species as being found in the same district, and there known to the Mongols as “Ata-dzeren,” or Little Antelope[4]. Przewalski, who met with this animal near the headwaters of the Tatong-gol, in Northern Tibet, and, as he believes, also in the highlands of Kan-su in China, describes its habits as follows:—

“Like the Orongo it frequents elevated plains, preferring, however, the valleys in the mountains where water is abundant. Yet its habits are very different from the Orongo’s, and it is without exception the most graceful and the swiftest of the antelopes of Mongolia and Northern Tibet. It generally moves in small herds of from five to seven (seldom as many as twenty), though solitary males are often seen. It is extremely wary, especially in those districts where it has learnt to fear man; on the banks of the Muruiussu it is a little less timid. Its swiftness is amazing; it bounds along like an india-rubber ball, and when startled seems absolutely to fly. During their breeding-season, which begins towards the close of December and lasts a month, the males chase one another from their herds, but we never saw them fighting like the Orongo, nor did we ever hear them utter any sound other than a snort on seeing a man; and the does when startled gave a short loud cry. They scrape themselves trenches a foot deep, in which they lie at night (and probably during the day), and in these we found heaps of their droppings.

“This little antelope is more difficult to shoot than the Orongo, besides being much scarcer and extremely tenacious of life. Its ashy-grey colour, exactly resembling the soil, renders it almost invisible at a distance, and it is only by its conspicuous white rump, and its snort, that you are able to discover its presence.”

There are many specimens of this Antelope in the British Museum presented by Mr. Hodgson, amongst which is the type of the species. There are also in the National Collection skulls from Kumaon and other localities presented by Mr. A. O. Hume, C.B.; from the Changchenmo Valley, Ladak, presented by Mr. R. Lydekker; and from the confines of Tibet north of Sikim, collected by Mandelli and presented by Dr. W. T. Blanford, F.R.S.

There is also a good series of specimens of this Gazelle in the Museum of the Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg, obtained by the Russian explorers in Northern Tibet and in the mountains of Nan-shan.

Our figure (Plate LII.), which has been put on the stone by Mr. Smit from a sketch prepared for Sir Victor Brooke by Mr. Wolf, represents a male and two females of this species, probably the specimens in the British Museum.

January, 1898.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES PL. LIII.

J Smit del, et lith.

Hanhart imp.

Przewalski’s Gazelle.

GAZELLA PRZEWALSKII.

Published by R H Porter

83. PRZEWALSKI’S GAZELLE.
GAZELLA PRZEWALSKII, Büchn.
[PLATE LIII.]

Antilope gutturosa, Przewalski, Mongolia (Russian ed.), p. 18, pl. i. fig. 1 (♂) (1875); id. op. cit. Morgan’s Engl. Transl. i. pp. 20 & 28 (1876).

Antilope cuvieri, Przewalski, Cat. Coll. (Russian) p. 110 (1888) (nec Ogilb.).

Gazella przewalskii, Büchn. Mélang. Biol. xiii. p. 164 (1890).

Vernacular Name:—Dzéren of Mongols (Przewalski)—applied to all the Gazelles of Central Asia.

Size rather greater than in G. picticaudata. General colour deep fawn in summer, pale finely grizzled fawn in winter. Sides of neck (at least in winter) and top of muzzle slaty brown; no ordinary gazelline face-markings. Ears short, acutely pointed[5]; coloured like the back. Rump with the white of the anal region running up on to the upper surface, divided in its centre by a narrow fawn-coloured line running from the back on to the tail. Tail very short, hidden in the fur; fawn along its top, inconspicuously pale brown at its tip. Front of limbs more or less brownish; no knee-tufts.

Skull short and stoutly built. No anteorbital fossæ. Nasals broad and short; premaxillæ not reaching up to the latter, the nasal opening unusually large and broad. Basal length of an adult male 7 inches, greatest breadth 3·8, muzzle to orbit 4.

Horns of median length and thickness, much compressed laterally; with the exception of their terminal two inches, they are evenly curved backwards and divergent outwards, the divergence increasing above; tips abruptly hooked inwards and slightly upwards, at a sharper angle with the rest of the horn than a right angle.

Female. Similar to the male, but without horns.

Hab. Mongolia; Koko Nor, northern part of Kan-su, and Ordos.

Przewalski’s Gazelle, which has been most appropriately named after the famous explorer who discovered it, was first described and figured by Przewalski himself in 1876, but erroneously confounded with the allied form G. gutturosa. Twelve years later, it appears, Przewalski discovered his error, and proposed to rename the animal Antilope cuvieri. But this specific term properly belongs to another species which had been described by Ogilby many years previously. Under these circumstances Dr. Büchner in his account of the Mammals of the Kan-su Expedition of Messrs. Potanin and Beresowski, proposed that this Gazelle should in future be known as Gazella przewalskii—Przewalski’s Gazelle.

In the English translation of Przewalski’s ‘Mongolia’ the habits of this species are described as follows:—

“These antelopes are gregarious, their herds sometimes numbering several hundreds or even thousands in those parts where food is plentiful, but they are most frequently seen in smaller numbers of from fifteen to thirty or forty head. Although they avoid the neighbourhood of man, they always select the best pasturages of the desert, and, like the Mongols, migrate from place to place in search of food, sometimes travelling great distances, especially in summer, when the drought drives them to the rich pasture-lands of Northern Mongolia, and as far as the confines of Trans-Baikalia. The deep snows of winter often compel them to travel several hundred miles in search of places almost or entirely free from snow. These animals belong exclusively to the plains, and carefully avoid the hilly country, but sometimes appear in the undulating parts of the steppe, particularly in spring, attracted by the young grass, which shoots up under the influence of the sun’s warmth. They shun thickets and high grass, excepting at the time of parturition, which is in May, when the doe seeks the covert to conceal her new-born offspring. But a few days after their birth the fawns follow their mothers about everywhere, and soon rival the fleet-footedness of their sires. They very seldom utter any sound, though the males occasionally give a short loud bleat. Nature has endowed them with excellent sight, hearing, and smell; their swiftness is marvellous and their intelligence well developed, qualities which prevent their falling so easy a prey as they otherwise would to their enemies—man and the wolf.

“The Mongols, armed with their poor matchlocks, hunt the dzerens in the following way. In those parts of the steppe where these antelopes abound they dig small pits at certain distances apart. These holes at first excite mistrust, so the animals are left alone for some weeks to get used to them. The hunters then repair to their allotted stations, and conceal themselves in the pits, while others make a wide circuit to windward and drive the herd towards the ambush. No gun is fired till they are within a distance of fifty paces or even less. The drivers must know their business and be thoroughly familiar with the habits of the animal, otherwise their labour will be lost. They must never gallop suddenly up to the herd—because if they do the antelopes almost always escape. The usual plan is to make a circuit round the herd, slowly narrowing the circle with repeated halts, or else to ride on one flank at a foot’s pace, gradually edging the herd towards the ambush.

“Towards the end of summer the dzerens are very fat, and are eagerly hunted by the Mongols for the sake of their delicate flesh, and also for their skins, which are made into winter clothing. The nomads, however, rarely wear the skins themselves, but sell them to Russian merchants at Urga and Kiakhta. Dzerens are also snared in traps made in the shape of a shoe of tough grass. When caught by the leg in one of these the animal lames itself in its struggles to get free, and becomes unable to move.”

Besides the Russian explorers already mentioned, the only traveller, so far as we are aware, that has met with Przewalski’s Gazelle in its native wilds is the well-known explorer Mr. St. George Littledale, F.R.G.S., who brought home a skin and skull of this species from his adventurous journey across Central Asia in 1893, and presented them to the British Museum. In the narrative of Mr. Littledale’s expedition, which is contained in the third volume of the ‘Geographical Journal’ (p. 465), will be found an allusion to this Antelope as observed by him near the Lake Koko Nor. The north shore of this lake, first seen by Mr. Littledale on the 3rd of August, 1893, was flat and swampy, and there were many of these antelopes feeding on it in company with Wild Asses (Equus kiang). In some MS. notes with which Mr. Littledale has kindly favoured us on this subject it is stated that he first saw examples of this Gazelle south of the Nan-Shan mountains in about lat. 38° 30´ N. and long. 96° 30´ E. On that occasion, he says, they were high up above the party, and nearly all males, but, as Mr. Littledale was then expecting an attack from the Tanguts, he did not like to leave the caravan to try after them. As the valley of the Buhain-Gol (the river which flows into Lake Koko Nor) was descended, the old males became scarcer, and round the lake, where he procured the specimen now in the British Museum, there were large bands of females accompanied by young males.

Besides Mr. Littledale’s specimens already mentioned, the British Museum contains a beautiful pair of this Antelope obtained in exchange from the Museum at St. Petersburg, from which our figures representing both sexes (Plate LIII.) have been prepared by Mr. Smit. It will be observed at once that though in its general form and coloration this species is somewhat similar to G. picticaudata, the shape of its horns is quite different, and readily distinguishes this species from its allies.

When at St. Petersburg in August 1897, Sclater had the opportunity of examining, under the kind guidance of Herr Büchner, the fine series of specimens of this Antelope in the Zoological Museum of the Imperial Academy of Sciences of that city. The specimens had been obtained in the region of the Koko Nor, in the most northern part of the Chinese province of Kan-su, and in Ordos, which is the country encompassed by the great northern bend of the River Hoang-Ho. In the southern part of this district Przewalski’s Gazelle was met with in great numbers during the Kan-su expedition already mentioned, and many specimens of it were obtained for the Imperial Museum at St. Petersburg.

January, 1898.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. LIV

Wolf del J Smit lith.

Hanhart imp.

The Mongolian Gazelle

GAZELLA GUTTUROSA

Published by R H Porter

84. THE MONGOLIAN GAZELLE.
GAZELLA GUTTUROSA (Pall.).
[PLATE LIV.]

Caprea campestris gutturosa, J. G. Gmel. N. Comm. Petrop. v. p. 347, pl. ix. (1760).

Antilope gutturosa, Pall. Spic. Zool. fasc. xii. p. 46, t. ii. (1777); Zimm. Geogr. Gesch. ii. p. 120 (1780); Herm. Tabl. Affin. Anim. p. 108 (1783); Bodd. Elench. Anim. p. 143 (1785); Schreb. Säug. pl. cclxxv. (1787); Gmel. Linn. S. N. i. p. 186 (1788); Kerr, Linn. An. K. p. 310 (1792); Donnd. Zool. Beytr. i. p. 627 (1792); Latham & Davis, Faunula Indica, p. 4 (1795); Link, Beytr. Nat. ii. p. 99 (1795); Bechst. Uebers. vierf. Th. ii. p. 645 (1800); Shaw, Gen. Zool. ii. pt. 2, p. 342 (1801); Turt. Linn. S. N. i. p. 113 (1802); G. Cuv. Dict. Sci. Nat. ii. p. 228 (1804); Desm. N. Dict. d’H. N. (1) xxii. p. 499, xxiv. Tabl. p. 33 (1804); Pall. Zoogr. Ross.-As. i. p. 251 (1811); Licht. Mag. nat. Freund. Berl. vi. p. 171 (1814); G. Fisch. Zoogn. iii. p. 431 (1814); Afzel, N. Act. Ups. vii. p. 220 (1815); Desm. N. Dict. d’H. N. (2) ii. p. 182 (1816); G. Cuv. Règne Anim. i. p. 260 (1817); Goldf. Schr. Säug. v. p. 1221 (1818); Schinz, Cuv. Thierr. i. p. 387 (1821); Desmoul. Dict. Class. i. p. 441 (1822); Desm. Mamm. ii. p. 452 (1822); H. Sm. Griff. An. K. iv. p. 229, v. p. 336 (1827); Less. Man. Mamm. p. 371 (1827); J. B. Fisch. Syn. Mamm. p. 458 (1829); Oken, Allg. Nat. vii. p. 1267 (1838); Laurill. Dict. Univ. i. p. 615 (1839); Gerv. Dict. Sci. Nat. Suppl. i. p. 260 (1840); Less. N. Tabl. R. A., Mamm. p. 176 (1842); Wagn. Schr. Säug. Suppl. iv. p. 416 (1844), v. p. 408 (1855); Reichenb. Säug. iii. p. 104, pl. xxxi. fig. 180 (1845); Schinz, Syn. Mamm. ii. p. 409 (1845); id. Mon. Antil. p. 11, pl. x. (1848); Sund. Pecora, K. Vet.-Ak. Handl. 1845, p. 270 (1847); id. Hornschuch’s Transl., Arch. Skand. Beitr. ii. p. 266; Reprint, p. 86 (1848); Gieb. Säug. p. 312 (1853); Radde, Ost-Sibirien, p. 254, pl. xi. fig. 1 (1862); Brehm, Thierl. iii. p. 201 (1880).

Cerophorus (Antilope) gutturosa, Blainv. Bull. Soc. Philom. 1816, p. 75.

Cemas gutturosa, Oken, Lehrb. Nat. iii. pt. 2, p. 737 (1816).

Gazella gutturosa, Gray, Ann. Mag. N. H. (1) xviii. p. 231 (1846); id. List Ost. B. M. p. 56 (1847); id. Knowsl. Men. p. 3 (1850); Brooke, P. Z. S. 1873, p. 546; Flow. & Lyd. Mamm. p. 342 (1891); Ward, Horn Meas. (1) p. 119 (1892), (2) p. 160 (1896); Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 182 (1893); Percy, Badm. Big Game Shooting, ii. p. 341 (1894).

Procapra gutturosa, Gray, P. Z. S. 1850, p. 115; id. Cat. Ung. B. M. p. 54 (1852); Gerr. Cat. Bones Mamm. B. M. p. 232 (1862); Gray, P. Z. S. 1867, p. 244, fig. (skull); Fitz. SB. Ak. Wien, lix. p. 161 (1869); Gray, Cat. Rum. B. M. p. 37 (1872); id. Hand-l. Rum. B. M. p. 105 (1873); Flow. & Gars. Cat. Coll. Surg. ii. p. 266 (1884); Jent. Cat. Ost. Leyd. Mus. (Mus. Pays-Bas, ix.) p. 136 (1887); id. Cat. Mamm. Leyd. Mus. (op. cit. xi.) p. 167 (1892).

Chinese Antelope, Penn. Syn. Mamm. p. 35 (1771).

Antilope tzeiran, Zimm. Spec. Zool. Geogr. p. 543 (1777).

Antilope orientalis, Erxl. Syst. R. A. p. 288 (1777); Gatt. Brev. Zool. i. p. 82 (1780); Desm. N. Dict. d’H. N. (1) xxiv. Tabl. p. 33 (1804).

Vernacular Names:—Dzéren of Mongols, the male Scharcholdsi, the female Ohno, the kid Ingdacha. Hoang-yang (Yellow Goat) of Chinese. Tzonrah (♂) and Vgovóh of Tanguts (Pallas).

Size fairly large; height at withers rather over 30 inches; form stout and thick. General colour fawn, paler than in most of the other species, but the rump and sides are white, as is the whole of the limbs. Gazelline face-markings absent; top of the muzzle browner than the rest of the head; sides of the muzzle and cheeks white. Ears short but pointed, thickly furred, their backs pale fawn, nearly white. No lateral bands, either dull or light. No knee-brushes. Tail very short, white, its tip brown.

According to Radde all the parts which are fawn in winter are in summer of an intense isabel-yellow.

Skull long and narrow, with a heavy muzzle. Anteorbital fossæ obsolete. Nasals long and broad. Basal length (in a not fully adult specimen) 9 inches, greatest breadth 4·1, muzzle to orbit 5·5.

Horns short in proportion to the size of the animal; heavily and closely ringed; basally they are parallel to each other, diverging above, with their tips again gently curved in towards each other.

Female. Similar, but without horns.

Hab. Northern and Eastern Mongolia, and southern borders of Russian Transbaikalia.

The great traveller and naturalist, Peter Simon Pallas, whose name we have already often mentioned in the course of this work, was the first technical describer of this Antelope, although he was by no means its discoverer, for he himself quotes previous references to it in the works of older authors. But Pallas, in the Supplement to his memoir on the Antelopes, published 1777, gave us the first scientific description of it, and selected for it the appropriate scientific name gutturosa, by which it has been ever since known. According to Pallas, the first Europeans to become acquainted with this Gazelle were the Jesuit missionaries in China, one of whom, Pereira, as quoted by Witsenius, mentions it as a Chinese animal; while Du Halde, in his great work upon China, describes it, under the name “Hoang-yang” or Capra flava, as wandering about in large flocks in the deserts of Mongolia. Further accounts of this Antelope were subsequently given by Messerschmidt and Gmelin in the Commentaries of the St. Petersburg Academy. These are also quoted by Pallas, who himself met with this animal on the upper course of the River Onon, on the southern frontiers of Transbaikalia. Pallas concludes his history of this species with a lengthened description of its external form and anatomy, and gives an uncoloured figure, in which the peculiar swollen condition of the throat in the male in the breeding-season (whence it was termed gutturosa) is correctly shown.

Pallas’s posthumous work, ‘Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica,’ contains little more than a summary of his previous account of this animal.

The numerous authors who followed Pallas added little or nothing to our knowledge of the Mongolian Gazelle, and were content to base their notices of it almost entirely upon his publications. It is not, in fact, until we come to nearly modern days that we obtain any further original information concerning this animal.

Dr. Gustav Radde, now Director of the Museum at Tiflis, made extensive journeys in South-eastern Siberia, under the patronage of the Imperial Geographical Society of Russia, in 1855 and the three following years, and amassed large zoological collections. One of the volumes of his ‘Reisen im Süden von Ost-Sibirien,’ published at St. Petersburg in 1862, is devoted to an account of the Mammals of South-eastern Siberia, and is, and will long remain, our standard work on this subject. Dr. Radde brought home five good specimens of this Antelope, and commences his account of it with accurate descriptions of its summer and winter pelages. He adds a detailed description of its skull and dentition, and compares them at length with those of Gazella subgutturosa.

As regards its distribution in the present epoch, Dr. Radde points out that, like the Dziggetai (Equus hemionus) and the Argali Sheep (Ovis ammon), the Mongolian Gazelle has retreated to the south and east from the Russian frontiers since the days of Pallas. There are at present only two places on the southern borderlands of Transbaikalia in which this Antelope remains during the summer and breeds every year. One of these is a district east of the Dsŭn-tarei which is seldom entered even by the shepherds of the Cossacks. It is an uninhabited and rather mountainous country, without wood or bushes, varied by salt-and some freshwater lakes, and covered only with yellow Elymus-grasses. The other district, which is of a similar character, lies north of the left bank of the Argunj, where this river enters into the Russian territories between the border-posts of Soktui and Abagaitui.

Dr. Radde gives the following account of the habits of this animal as observed by himself and as obtained from the reports of the natives in 1856:—

“About the middle of June the doe produces generally two young ones which remain quiet for three days, but after that are strong enough to follow the mother wherever she goes. If caught when young they quickly become tame. Shortly after my arrival at Zagan-olui in May 1856 I saw a fawn of this Antelope feeding with the sheep and goats without requiring any particular attention.

“In summer these Antelopes are seldom hunted because they are only occasionally to be found, but they are much pursued during the early winter. There are, however, but few good Antelope-hunters, especially amongst the Russians. Various methods are adopted to get within shot. So long as no snow has fallen the Antelopes usually proceed about midday in small flocks to the freshwater lakes, where they break the thin ice with their hoofs in order to drink. They select the same spot every day for this purpose, and there it is that the hunter makes his hiding-place. Driven on to the thin ice, the Antelopes often fall through and thus become an easy prey.

“The ordinary way of hunting these Antelopes requires two sportsmen, one of whom acts as driver for the other. One of the hunters, as soon as he sees the Antelopes at a distance of 4 or 5 versts, lies down flat behind a marmot’s hillock, or finds some other hiding-place amongst the grass, and holds his gun ready, whilst the other makes a long circuit and drives the Antelopes towards his companion. The flying Antelopes generally depart in a line; but the old males do not always keep in front, an old female sometimes occupying that position. Pursued by the driver, the frightened animals proceed sometimes at a walk, at other times in a hasty gallop, during which they occasionally utter a sharp clear cry. When they come within range the driver imitates the call of a raven or the howl of a wolf to awake the attention of the animals and to allow the shooter to choose out his victim more readily. The Tunguts of the Steppes are especially skilled in finding and pursuing the Antelopes, and even the young maidens of these tribes take part in the chase. At one of the border-posts there was a celebrated hunter who in many winters had obtained as many as 200 of these Antelopes, which at this season go about in large herds. They are occasionally so crowded together, as this hunter assured me, that he had sometimes killed three and even four individuals with one bullet.

“In what large numbers this Antelope sometimes assembles I was able to convince myself in October 1856, when I was on the other side of the Argunj in Mongolian territory, for their tracks and their droppings were so numerous that it appeared as if some thousands of sheep had gone by.

“The winter pelts of this Antelope make very warm and durable coats (locally called dachas), which are worn with the hair outside: the hair is not so brittle as that of the Roe. They are valued at about one and a half roubles apiece. The flesh of this Antelope is very palatable and the old bucks in the autumn become extraordinarily fat.”

Fig. 56.

Skull and horns of the Mongolian Gazelle.

(P. Z. S. 1867, p. 245.)

In 1867 Dr. Lockhart brought home with him from Pekin two skulls of this Antelope and presented them to the British Museum. Dr. Gray read some notes on them at a meeting of the Zoological Society of London in February of that year. These notes were subsequently published in the ‘Proceedings,’ accompanied by an outline figure of one of the heads, which, by the kind favour of the Society, we are enabled to reproduce. Dr. Lockhart gave to Dr. Gray the following information as to this Antelope:—

“The animal to which they belong is called Hwang-Yang, the Yellow or Imperial Sheep. It is brought into Peking from Mongolia in large numbers in a frozen state, and sold for food. The flesh is much esteemed for its fine flavour and tenderness, and is eagerly purchased both by natives and foreigners.

“The European gentlemen in Peking used to go into Mongolia on shooting-expeditions for the purpose of hunting the Hwang-Yang. The animal, however, is very wary and generally keeps a long way out of range, so that the hunters are not very successful. It is considered a great feat to kill one of them.”

Besides an adult stuffed specimen of this species in the British Museum, stated, but probably erroneously, to have come from the Kirghiz Steppes, there are several skins and skulls in the collection obtained by the late Consul R. Swinhoe at Pekin, besides the two heads and horns already spoken of as brought home by Dr. Lockhart.

Our illustration (Plate LIV.), which represents both sexes of this Antelope, was put upon the stone by Mr. Smit from a sketch drawn by Mr. Wolf for the late Sir Victor Brooke. We have no record of what were the exact specimens figured.

January, 1898.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. LV.

J. Smit del. et lith.

Hanhart imp.

The Persian Gazelle.

GAZELLA SUBGUTTUROSA.

Published by R. H. Porter.

85. THE PERSIAN GAZELLE.
GAZELLA SUBGUTTUROSA (Güld.).
[PLATE LV.]

Antilope subgutturosa, Güld. Act. Ac. Sc. Imp. Petrop. 1778, pt. i. p. 251 (1780); Schreb. Säug. pl. cclxx. B (1785); Gmel. Linn. S. N. i. p. 186 (1788); Kerr, Linn. An. K. p. 311 (1792); Donnd. Zool. Beytr. i. p. 628 (1792); Link, Beytr. Nat. ii. p. 99 (1795); Bechst. Uebers. vierf. Thierr. ii. p. 645 (1800); Shaw, Gen. Zool. ii. pt. 2, p. 343 (1801); Turt. Linn. Syst. Nat. p. 113 (1802); G. Cuv. Dict. Sci. Nat. ii. p. 227 (1804); Pall. Zoogr. Ross.-As. i. p. 252 (1811); Afzel. N. Act. Ups. vii. p. 220 (1815); Desm. N. Dict. d’H. N. (2) ii. p. 185 (1816); Goldf. Schr. Säug. v. p. 1196 (1818); Desm. Mamm. ii. p. 454 (1822); H. Sm. Griff. An. K. iv. p. 210, v. p. 331 (1827); Less. Man. Mamm. p. 373 (1827); J. B. Fisch. Syn. Mamm. p. 460 (1829); Hohenacker, Bull. Soc. Mosc. 1837, viii. p. 137 (Transcaucasia); Ménétriés, Cat. rais. Zool. Caucase, p. 24 (borders of Caspian Sea); Less. Compl. Buff. x. p. 287 (1836); Oken, Allg. Naturg. vii. p. 1268 (1838); Gerv. Dict. Sci. Nat., Suppl. i. p. 261 (1840); Démidoff, Voy. Russ. Mérid. iii. p. 61 (1840) (Transcaucasia); Eichwald, Faun. Caspio-Caucas. p. 39 (1841); Less. N. Tabl. R. A., Mamm. p. 176 (1842); Wagn. Schr. Säug. Suppl. iv. p. 406 (1844), v. p. 404 (1855); Schinz, Syn. Mamm. ii. p. 402 (1845); Reichenb. Säug. iii. p. 114, pl. xxxiv. (1845); Sund. Pecora, K. Vet.-Ak. Handl. 1845, p. 269 (1847); id. Hornschuch’s Transl., Arch. Skand. Beitr. ii. p. 265; Reprint, p. 85 (1848); Gieb. Säug. p. 307 (1853); De Fil. Viagg. in Persia, p. 344 (1865); Fitz. SB. Wien, lix. p. 160 (1869).

Antilope (Gazella) subgutturosa, Licht. Mag. nat. Freund. vi. p. 171 (1814).

Cerophorus (Gazella) subgutturosa, Blainv. Bull. Soc. Philom. 1816, p. 75.

Gazella subgutturosa, Gray, List Mamm. B. M. p. 160 (1843); id. Ann. Mag. N. H. (1) xviii. p. 231 (1846); Hutt. J. A. S. B. xv. p. 151 (1846) (Candahar); Gray, Knowsl. Men. p. 4 (1850); id. P. Z. S. 1850, p. 113; id. Cat. Ung. B. M. p. 58 (1852); Temm. Esq. Zool. Guin. p. 193 (1853); Blyth, Cat. Mamm. Mus. As. Soc. p. 172 (1863); Wolf, Zool. Sketches, pl. xxii.; Scl. P. Z. S. 1869, p. 602; Blanf. Zool. Abyss, p. 261, pl. i. fig. 4 (horns) (1870); Gray, Cat. Rum. B. M. p. 38 (1872); id. Hand-l. Rum. B. M. p. 107 (1873); Blanf. P. Z. S. 1873, p. 313 (distribution); Brooke, P. Z. S. 1873, p. 545; Przewalski, Mongolia (Russian ed.), pl. i. fig. 2 (1875); id. Morgan’s Engl. Transl. i. p. 207 (1876); Blanf. E. Persia, ii. p. 91 (1876); Severtz. Ann. Mag. N. H. (4) xviii. p. 170 (1876); Danf. & Alst. P. Z. S. 1877, p. 276 (Tigris); iid. P. Z. S. 1880, p. 55; Scl. List An. Z. S. (8) p. 141 (1883), (9) p. 155 (1896); Sterndale, Mamm. Ind. p. 466 (1884); Scl. P. Z. S. 1886, p. 2; Scully, J. A. S. B. lvi. pt. 2, p. 76 (1887); Jent. Cat. Ost. Leyd. Mus. (Mus. P.-B. ix.) p. 136 (1887); Thos. Linn. Trans. (2) v. p. 64 (1889); Büchn. Mél. Biol. xiii. p. 160 (1890); W. Scl. Cat. Mamm. Calc. Mus. ii. p. 160 (1891); Blanf. Faun. Brit. Ind., Mamm. p. 528 (1891); Jent. Cat. Mamm. Leyd. Mus. (Mus. P.-B. xi.) p. 168 (1892); Ward, Horn Meas. (1) p. 118 (1892), (2) p. 159 (1896); Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 180 (1893); Percy, Badm. Big Game Shooting, ii. p. 342 (1894); Satunin, Zool. JB. Syst. ix. p. 310 (1896) (Transcaucasia).

“Antilope dorcas, var. persica, Rüpp.,” Gray, List Mamm. B. M. p. 160 (1843).

Gazella subgutturosa, var. yarkandensis, Blanf. J. A. S. B. xliv. pt. 2, p. 112; id. Yark. Miss., Mamm. p. 88, pl. xv. (1879).

Gazella hillieriana et G. mongolica, Heude, Mém. Hist. Nat. Chine, ii. p. 245, pls. xxxvi. & xxxvii. (1894).

Vernacular Names:—Dshairan (Pallas), Ahu (Blanford) of Persians; Karakeuruk (= Black-tail) of Khirghiz Tartars (Pallas); Kik (or Sai-kik) and Tairan of Turkis of Yarkand (Blanford).

Size medium, height at withers about 26–27 inches. General colour dark sandy fawn. Face-markings indistinct, the central band visible in youth gradually interrupted and replaced by white as age advances. Dark facial streaks in front of eyes present, but little defined. An anteorbital gland present. Larynx swollen, forming a peculiar projection in front of the neck. Ears of medium length, pointed, their backs short-haired even in winter, pale fawn. Dark lateral band not, or scarcely, darker than the back, from which it is separated by an indistinct light lateral band. Pygal band present, not strongly marked. Tail 8 or 10 inches long, crested, black. Knee-brushes present, brown or black.

Skull stoutly built; nasals broad and short; anteorbital fossa well marked. Basal length 8 inches, greatest breadth 3·8, muzzle to orbit 4·6.

Horns of medium length, thick, evenly diverging from each other as they curve backwards; their tips decidedly, though not abruptly, bent inwards and slightly upwards.

Female similar to the male, but without horns, or occasionally with minute rudiments of them.

Hab. Western Asia from Asia Minor and Caucasia in the west to Turkestan, Yarkand, and Mongolia in the east.

The Persian Gazelle, as it is commonly called, is by no means restricted to Persia, but, as we shall presently show, has a wide range through the steppes of Central Asia from the borders of Asia Minor to Northern China. It was first made known to science by Anton Güldenstädt, an enterprising Russian traveller and naturalist of the last century, who met with it in 1772 in the course of his explorations of the countries adjacent to the Black and Caspian Seas. Güldenstädt wrote an elaborate description of it in 1878 in a memoir published two years later in the ‘Acta’ of the Imperial Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg, and named it “subgutturosa,” “because its throat protruded slightly, but not so much as in Antilope gutturosa.” Pallas, who also observed this Antelope during his travels in Central Asia, included it under Güldenstädt’s name in his ‘Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica.’

After Güldenstädt and Pallas several other Russian naturalists—Hohenacker, Nordmann, and Eichwald—recorded this Gazelle as being met with on the plains of Transcaucasia. Ménétriés, in his memoir on the Zoology of the Caucasus published in 1832, tells us that at that period it was very common, especially in winter, on the vast steppes bordering the Caspian between Baku and Kur, whence, as Herr Büchner has kindly informed us, it extends up the valley of the Kur nearly to Tiflis. Satunin, our most recent authority on the Mammals of this district, states that he found it throughout the steppes of Eastern Transcaucasia, and especially numerous on the Mugan Steppe. Whether this is the Gazelle found on the upper plains of the Tigris and Euphrates, as reported by Danford from hearsay, seems to be uncertain, though it probably penetrates into the highlands of Asiatic Turkey adjacent to Mount Ararat, and is certainly found in the valley of the Araxes.

In Persia, Dr. Blanford tells us, in his volume on the zoology of that country, G. subgutturosa is the Gazelle of the highlands, and is found in almost all the valleys and plains from about 3000 to about 7000 feet above the sea-level, ranging higher in winter and lower in summer, but keeping generally within the limits mentioned. It is unknown in the plains of Mesopotamia, and on the lower ground along the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea.

Dr. Blanford adds the following notes from the pen of the late Sir Oliver St. John, who was very well acquainted with Persia and its animals:—

“This is the common Gazelle of Persia, and is found everywhere away from the forests of the Caspian and the shores of the Persian Gulf, in which last locality it is replaced by another species (probably G. bennetti). Like the Wild Ass, it especially affects the neighbourhood of the salt deserts. It appears to retire generally to the valleys at the base of hills to breed, and is most commonly seen in small parties of three to half-a-dozen. I do not remember ever having seen twenty together. The fleetest greyhounds cannot come up with the Gazelle when it gets a fair start, but when suddenly roused from a hollow, or when the ground is heavy after rain, good dogs will often pull down males.”

Dr. Blanford has included this Gazelle in the ‘Fauna of British India,’ because, as ascertained by the late Sir Oliver St. John, it occurs in Pishin north of Quetta, now in British territory, though it is not met with in any other part of the Indian Empire.

Throughout the sandy plains along the northern boundary of Afghanistan this Gazelle is abundant. Dr. J. E. T. Aitchison, who accompanied the Commission for the delimitation of the Afghan boundary in 1884, tells us that it was occasionally seen along the whole route from Quetta to Khusan. In the low hills and great gravel plains of the valley of the Hari-rud they were observed everywhere, but were very wary and difficult of approach. In June 1885, at Chinkilok, to the north-west of Herat, between that city and the range of the Parapomisus, Dr. Aitchison caught a young female Gazelle of this species about a day old, and subsequently, on his way home through Persia, obtained three others of about the same age. These four Gazelles, as we have been told, were carried many hundred miles through Persia in large covered baskets on each side of two camels, and were commonly believed by the natives to be Dr. Aitchison’s four wives, the baskets being of the same fashion as those generally used in that country for the conveyance of women! Dr. Aitchison brought his four pets safely home to the Zoological Society’s Gardens, where they throve well and bred in 1887, 1888, and in several succeeding years. Two of the males of this family, born in the Society’s Menagerie in 1892 and 1894, are still living there.

According to Herr Büchner, who has kindly supplied us with some valuable notes on the Asiatic Gazelles, this species is found in suitable localities all over the Transcaspian Provinces of Russia, and ranges northwards to the steppes between the Caspian and the Aral, and eastwards to Lake Balkash. Far beyond this it extends across the southern portions of the great Desert of Gobi into the Chinese Provinces of Zaidam, Alaschan, and Ordos.

On crossing the high range north of the Hindu Koosh into Eastern Turkestan a Gazelle very similar to the Persian Gazelle is met with. Six examples of this form were obtained by the naturalists of the Second Yarkand Mission in 1873–74, and were described by Dr. Blanford in his memoir on the Mammals of that Mission. Dr. Blanford says that it is perhaps a question whether the Eastern Turkestan Gazelle should not be raised to the rank of a species. It differs principally from the typical form in the very much darker markings on the face and in the much smaller degree to which the horns diverge. The size appears rather larger than that of the typical Persian form. But as there are some variations in the face-markings of Persian specimens, Dr. Blanford has considered it better to regard the Yarkand race as only a variety, which he has proposed to call Gazella subgutturosa yarkandensis. Of this subspecies an excellent coloured figure, drawn by Smit, is given in the above-named work. It represents both sexes, and shows the black markings on the face very distinctly.

As pointed out by Dr. Blanford, it is nearly certain that the Gazelle to which Shaw refers, in his volume on ‘High Tartary, Yarkand, and Kashgar’ (page 221), as having been brought to him at Yarkand, and of which he says the Yarkand name is “saikeek,” was of the present species—that is, of the local form Gazella subgutturosa yarkandensis.

We have already mentioned the four living examples of this Gazelle brought to London by Dr. Aitchison and presented to the Zoological Society’s Collection. These, however, were not the first specimens of this animal brought to England alive. As long ago as 1852 females of the present species were obtained from Bussorah on the Persian Gulf and presented to the Society by Alderman Finnis, and in 1869 examples from the same country were given to the collection by the late Mr. T. K. Lynch, F.Z.S. Other specimens, mostly from the same country, were received in subsequent years[6]. The examples of this animal just spoken of as being the first to arrive in England formed the subjects of a beautiful drawing by Mr. Wolf, a coloured lithograph taken from which has been published in the first volume of Wolf and Sclater’s ‘Zoological Sketches’ (plate xxii.).

Our figures of this species for the present work (Plate LV.) have been prepared by Mr. Smit from the descendants of the animals brought by Dr. Aitchison from Northern Persia, now living in the Society’s Gardens.

The series of specimens of this species in the British Museum comprises a skull from near Ispahan in Persia, presented by Dr. W. T. Blanford, F.R.S.; a head-skin and some horns from Gulran and Galicha, on the Afghan frontier, collected by Dr. Aitchison during the Afghan Boundary Commission; and some skins and skulls from the Saiar Mountains, Altai, presented by Mr. St. George Littledale. There are likewise a skin from the River Aksu, in Chinese Turkestan, presented by Major C. S. Cumberland, and several fine skulls and pairs of horns from the plains of Yarkand, obtained by the late Mr. Dalgleish, and presented to the Museum by Mr. A. C. Hume, C.B. All these last-named specimens represent the Yarkand subspecies, Gazella subgutturosa yarkandensis.

January, 1898.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. LVI.

J. Smit del. et lith.

Hanhart imp.

The Marica Gazelle.

GAZELLA MARICA.

Published by R. H. Porter.

86. THE MARICA GAZELLE.
GAZELLA MARICA, Thos.
[PLATE LVI.]

Gazella bennetti, Scl. List Vert. An. Z. S. 1896, p. 155, ex. f. (err.).

Gazella marica, Thos. Ann. Mag. N. H. (6) xix. p. 162 (1897).

Vernacular Name:—Reem of Arabs of Nejd (Jayakar).

Closely allied to G. subgutturosa, with which it shares the substitution of white for the dark colour of the central facial band, the general plan of coloration, and the curvature of the horns. Size, however, very markedly smaller. General colour pale fawn. Facial markings almost obsolete; when distinguishable they are only of the general body-colour and very slightly defined from the paler bands between them. Ears long, their backs whitish fawn. Pale lateral band scarcely visible; dark lateral band and pygal band pale brown, little marked, scarcely darker than the dorsal colour. Limbs whitish throughout; distinct knee-tufts present.

Skull and horns, so far as the male is concerned, very much as in G. subgutturosa, although much smaller. Basal length of skull (in an old male) 6·1 inches, greatest breadth 3·15, muzzle to orbit 3·45.

Female. Similar, but horns only from 3 to 5 inches in length, slender, straight or slightly curved.

Hab. Arabian Desert, from Nejd in Central Arabia to Western Oman.

This little Gazelle is a recent discovery of Surgeon Lieut.-Col. A. S. G. Jayakar, C.M.Z.S., who has been for many years resident at Muscat in the service of the British Indian Government. Surgeon Jayakar, whose magnificent collections of Muscat fishes are known to all ichthyologists, has during the past years collected and presented to the National Museum several consignments of mammals from this little-known country. Of these Thomas published an account in the ‘Proceedings’ of the Zoological Society for 1894, the most remarkable of them being a new Wild Goat, from the Akhdar Range behind Muscat, which was named Hemitragus jayakari after its discoverer. In 1897 the British Museum received from Surgeon Jayakar another consignment of mammals collected at Muscat within the previous two years. In this last series, besides the Oman specimens which were referable to species already recorded in Thomas’s paper, there were several skins and skulls of the present Gazelle, obtained from the Nejd or Nedsched Desert in the interior of Arabia. Thomas established his Gazella marica upon these examples.

In a letter addressed to Thomas, Dr. Jayakar says that four of the “Reem Gazelles” were from the Nejd Desert and one from Dahireh, the north-western district of Oman. “It is probable,” he continues, “that the species extends down to the desert behind Oman, as that is continuous with the Nejd Desert.” Surgeon Jayakar subsequently presented to the Museum a sixth (female) specimen from Aboor near Adam in Oman.

The Marica Gazelle is clearly a close relative of the Persian Gazelle, which it seems to represent in Arabia. But it is considerably smaller in size, paler in colour, and is nearly free from face-markings, besides having horns in the female sex. This last point is interesting, as it shows how little importance, in a generic sense, should be attributed to the presence or absence of horns in the female of an Antelope; for it appears that this species, in which the horns are present in the female, is unquestionably more nearly related to one in which the horns are absent in the female than to the group of Gazella dorcas, in which the horns are developed in both sexes.

In February, 1892, the Zoological Society of London received as a gift from Lt.-Col. Talbot, then British resident at Muscat, along with a Beatrix Antelope (Oryx beatrix), a small female Gazelle, with the information that it had been obtained from the Bahrein Islands, in the Persian Gulf. Sclater was at first much puzzled to give a name to this Gazelle, but after some hesitation came to the conclusion that it might be a small female of the Indian Gazella bennetti, which is known to extend along the coast of Baluchistan nearly to the Persian Gulf, and accordingly entered it in the Society’s Register[7] under that name. This animal, however, which is still living in the Society’s Gardens, is undoubtedly a female of the present species. On reference to the late Theodore Bent’s paper on the Bahrein Islands (P. R. G. S. xii. p. 8, 1890) it will be found stated that on the desert which occupies the greater part of the largest island of the group “a small Gazelle is abundant,” and is often hunted by the Bahreini Arabs with hawk and hounds. There can be little doubt that this Gazelle is G. marica.

Our illustration of the Marica Gazelle (Plate LVI.) has been taken by Mr. Smit from the typical specimen from Nejd in the British Museum, and represents an adult male.

January, 1898.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES PL. LVII.

Wolf del J Smit lith

Hanhart imp.

The Dorcas Gazelle.

GAZELLA DORCAS.

Published by R. H. Porter

87. THE DORCAS GAZELLE.
GAZELLA DORCAS (Linn.).
[PLATE LVII.]

Gazella africana, cornibus brevibus, Ray, Quadr. p. 80 (1693), whence

Capra dorcas, Linn. Syst. Nat. (10) i. p. 69 (1758), (12) i. p. 96 (1766).

Antilope dorcas, Pall. Spic. Zool. i. p. 11 (1767), xii. p. 15 (1777); Müll. Natursyst. Suppl. p. 54 (1776); Erxl. Syst. R. A. p. 285 (1777); Zimm. Spec. Zool. Geogr. p. 543 (1777); id. Geogr. Gesch. ii. p. 117 (1780); Gatt. Brev. Zool. i. p. 82 (1780); Herrm. Tab. Aff. Anim. p. 108 (1783); Schreb. Säug. pl. cclxix. (1785); Bodd. Elench. Anim. p. 142 (1785); Gmel. Linn. S. N. i. p. 187 (1788); Kerr, Linn. An. K. p. 313 (1792); Donnd. Zool. Beytr. i. p. 630 (1792); Link, Beytr. Nat. ii. p. 99 (1795); G. Cuv. Tabl. Élém. p. 163 (1798); Bechst. Uebers. vierf. Thierr. ii. p. 644 (1800); Lac. Mém. de l’Inst., Sci. Phys. iii. p. 498 (1801); Shaw, Gen. Zool. ii. pt. 2, p. 350 (1801); Turt. Linn. S. N. i. p. 113 (1802); G. Cuv. Dict. Sci. Nat. ii. p. 225 (1804); Desm. N. Dict. d’H. N. (1) xxiv. Tabl. p. 32 (1804); Tied. Zool. i. p. 409 (1808); Licht. Mag. nat. Freund. vi. p. 168 (1814); G. Fisch. Zoogn. iii. p. 426 (1814); Afz. N. Act. Ups. vii. p. 220 (1815); Blainv. Bull. Soc. Philom. 1816, p. 75; Desm. N. Dict. d’H. N. (2) ii. p. 183 (1816); G. Cuv. Règne Anim. i. p. 259 (1817); Schinz, Cuv. Thierr. i. p. 386 (1821); Desm. Mamm. ii. p. 453 (1822); Desmoul. Dict. Class. d’H. N. i. p. 440 (1822); Less. Man. Mamm. p. 372 (1827); H. Sm. Griff. An. K. iv. p. 212, v. p. 332 (1827); J. B. Fisch. Syn. Mamm. p. 459 (1829); Less. Compl. Buff. x. p. 286 (1836); Oken, Allg. Naturg. vii. p. 1369 (1838); Laurill. Dict. Univ. d’H. N. i. p. 614 (1839); Less. N. Tabl. R. A., Mamm. p. 176 (1842); Forst. Descr. Anim. p. 386 (1844); Wagn. Schr. Säug. Suppl. iv. p. 405 (1844), v. p. 403 (1855); Schinz, Syn. Mamm. ii. p. 398 (1845); Sund. Pecora, K. Vet.-Ak. Handl. 1845, p. 267 (1847); id. Hornschuch’s Transl., Arch. Skand. Beitr. ii. p. 263; Reprint, p. 83 (1848); Schinz, Mon. Antil. p. 3, pl. i. (1848); Gieb. Säug. p. 305 (1853); Heugl. Ant. u. Buff. N.O.-Afr. (N. Act. Leop. xxx. pt. 2) p. 5 (1863) (in part); id. N.O.-Afr. ii. p. 99 (1877); Brehm, Thierl. iii. p. 205 (1880).

Cemas dorcas, Oken, Lehrb. Nat. iii. pt. 2, p. 737 (1816).

Dorcas dorcas, Gray, Med. Repos. xv. p. 307 (1821).

Gazella dorcas, Og. P. Z. S. 1836, p. 137; Gray, List Mamm. B. M. p. 160 (1843); id. Ann. Mag. N. H. (1) xviii. p. 231 (1846); id. List Ost. B. M. p. 56 (1847); id. Knowsl. Men. p. 4, pl. iii. (1850); id. P. Z. S. 1850, p. 112; id. Cat. Ung. B. M. p. 55 (1852); Temm. Esq. Zool. Guin. p. 193 (1853); Loche, Cat. Mamm. Algérie, p. 13 (1858); Tristram, Gt. Sahara, p. 387 (1860); Gerr. Cat. Bones Mamm. B. M. p. 232 (1862); Blyth, Cat. Mamm. Mus. As. Soc. p. 172 (1863); Loche, Expl. Alg., Mamm. p. 67 (1867); Fitz. SB. Wien, lix. pt. 1, p. 159 (1869); Gray, Cat. Rum. B. M. p. 38 (1872); id. Hand-l. Rum. B. M. p. 106 (1873); Brooke, P. Z. S. 1873, p. 537; Danf. & Alst. P. Z. S. 1877, p. 276 (Asia Minor); iid. P. Z. S. 1880, p. 55; Scl. List Vert. An. Z. S. (8) p. 140 (1883), (9) p. 154 (1896); Flow. & Gars. Cat. Coll. Surg. ii.p. 263 (1884); Lataste, Mamm. Barb. (Act. Soc. Linn. Bord. xxxix.) sep. cop. p. 171 (1885); id. Mamm. Tunisie, p. 36 (1887); Jent. Cat. Ost. Leyd. Mus. (Mus. Pays-Bas, ix.) p. 136 (1889); W. Scl. Cat. Mamm. Calc. Mus. ii. p. 157 (1891); Ward, Horn Meas. (1) p. 114 (1892), (2) p. 157 (1896); Jent. Cat. Mamm. Leyd. Mus. (Mus. Pays-Bas, xi.) p. 167 (1892); Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 180 (1893); Thos. P. Z. S. 1894, p. 467 (Algeria); Scl. P. Z. S. 1895, p. 523 (Egypt); Pease, P. Z. S. 1896, p. 812 (range in Algeria); Whitaker, P. Z. S. 1896, p. 815 (range in Tunis).

La Gazelle, Buff. Hist. Nat. xii. p. 249, pl. xxiii. (1764), whence

Antilope gazella, Pall. Misc. Zool. p. 7 (1766); Bodd. Elench. Anim. p. 140 (1785); Kerr, Linn. An. K. p. 316 (1792); Donnd. Zool. Beytr. i. p. 638 (1792); Latham & Davies, Faunula Indica, p. 4 (1795); Bechst. Uebers. vierif. Thierr. ii. p. 642 (1800); Shaw, Gen. Zool. ii. pt. 2, p. 316 (1801); Turt. Linn. Syst. Nat. i. p. 114 (1802) (nec Capra gazella, Linn.).

Le Kevel, Buff. Hist. Nat. xii. p. 258, pl. xxvi. (1764), whence

Antilope kevella, Pall. Misc. Zool. p. 7 (1766); id. Spic. Zool. i. p. 12 (1767), xii. p. 15 (1777); Müll. Natursyst. Supp. p. 54 (1776); Erxl. Syst. R. A. p. 287 (1777); Zimm. Spec. Zool. Geogr. p. 543 (1777); id. Geogr. Gesch. ii. p. 117 (1780); Gatt. Brev. Zool. i. p. 82 (1780); Schreb. Säug. pl. cclxx. (1785); Bodd. Elench. Anim. p. 142 (1785); Gmel. Linn. S. N. i. p. 187 (1788); Kerr, Linn. An. K. p. 313 (1792); Link, Beytr. Nat. ii. p. 99 (1795); Shaw, Gen. Zool. ii. pt. 2, p. 351 (1801); Desm. N. Dict. d’H. N. (1) xii. p. 380 (1803), xxiv. Tabl. p. 33 (1804); G. Fisch. Zoogn. iii. p. 436 (1814); Desm. N. Dict. d’H. N. (2) ii. p. 184 (1816); H. Sm. Griff. An. K. iv. p. 213, v. p. 332 (1827).

Cerophorus (Gazella) kevella, Blainv. Bull. Soc. Philom. 1816, p. 75.

Cemas kevella, Oken, Lehrb. Nat. iii. pt. 2, p. 738 (1816).

Gazella kevella, Jard. Nat. Misc. (1) vii. p. 208, pl. xxvi. (1842).

La Corine, Buff. Hist. Nat. xii. p. 261, pl. xxvii. (1764), whence

Antilope corinna, Pall. Misc. Zool. p. 7 (1766); Erxl. Syst. R. A. p. 291 (1777); Zimm. Geogr. Gesch. ii. p. 118 (1780); Schreb. Säug. pl. cclxxi. (1785); Bodd. Elench. Anim. p. 143 (1785); Gmel. Linn. S. N. i. p. 188 (1788); Kerr, Linn. An. K. p. 313 (1792); Link, Beytr. Nat. ii. p. 99 (1795); Bechst. Uebers. vierf. Thierr. ii. p. 645 (1800); Desm. N. Dict. d’H. N. (1) vi. p. 219 (1803), xxiv. Tabl. p. 33 (1804); G. Fisch. Zoogn. iii. p. 430 (1814); Desm. N. Dict. d’H. N. (2) ii. p. 184 (1816); Goldf. Schr. Säug. v. p. 1193 (1818); H. Sm. Griff. An. K. iv. p. 214, v. p. 333 (1827).

Cerophorus (Gazella) corinna, Blainv. Bull. Soc. Philom. 1816, p. 75.

Cemas maculata, Oken, Lehrb. Nat. iii. pt. 2, p. 738 (1816).

Gazella dorcas sundevalli, Fitz. SB. Wien, lix. pt. 1, p. 159 (1869).

Vernacular Names:—Rhozal or Hemar of Arabs of Algeria (Pease); Ghasala of Arabs (Tristram).

Size small; height at withers 21–22 inches. General colour pale fawn, rather variable in tone. Facial markings distinct; central band rufous fawn; streaks from eye to mouth brownish fawn, contrasting with the white bands between them. Ears long, whitish fawn behind. Light lateral band present, but not strongly marked; dark lateral band brown, considerably darker than the back, but not black. Pygal band indistinct. Knee-tufts present.

Skull rather lightly built; nasals narrow; anteorbital fossæ large and deep. Basal length 6·6 inches, greatest breadth 3·35, muzzle to orbit 3·55.

Horns of medium length, but quite different in their shape to those of any other species, although the difference is not very easy to explain. Primarily it may be said that they are flattened laterally, are evenly divergent as they curve backwards, reapproach terminally, and have their tips bent upwards in a well-marked curve. But in addition to this simple curvature, the middle portion of each horn is lyrated outwards, so that the longest diameter of the horn-section above is quite in a different plane to what it is at the base; it is in consequence of this lyration that the horns, apart altogether from the curved tips, reapproach each other terminally, while in all other species such reapproach as occurs is entirely due to the incurving of the tips. The lyration and curvature of the horns are well shown in our figure (p. 108), and a comparison of it with those of GG. przewalskii, marica, tilonura, and soemmerringi will show how different the method of terminal approximation is in this species as compared with them.

Female. Similar to the male, but horns slender, slightly curved, from one-half to three-fourths the length of those of the male.

Hab. Morocco and Algeria, and extending through Egypt into Palestine and Syria.

Like other Antelopes known to Linnæus, the Dorcas Gazelle was placed by the great founder of systematic nomenclature in the genus Capra, and called Capra dorcas. The specific term selected was taken from the Greek, in which language it signifies primarily a wild goat or fawn, and subsequently the name of a woman, being, as we know from a familiar passage in the New Testament, the equivalent of the Syriac “Tabitha.” The term “dorcas,” however, according to good authorities, was also applied to the present animal by Ælian and other ancient writers. Linnæus based his Capra dorcas upon the Gazella africana of Ray’s ‘Synopsis of Quadrupeds,’ which there can be little doubt was intended for the present species, although it has been supposed by some authors to be rather applicable to the Bubal (Bubalis boselaphus).

In his memoir on the Antelopes, published at Berlin in 1767, Pallas placed Antilope dorcas eighth in the list, basing it on Buffon’s “La Gazelle,” which it is evident, both from the figure and the description, was taken from a specimen of the present animal.

Besides “La Gazelle” in the twelfth volume of his ‘Histoire Naturelle,’ Buffon also described and figured another Antelope, “Le Kevel,” of which he does not state the locality. Some authors have been disposed to refer Buffon’s Kevel to the larger Antelope of Algeria, which is generally called Gazella cuvieri. But Buffon’s description of the colour of the face and the length he attributes to the ears, as likewise his phrase that the Kevel is “plus petit que la Gazelle,” taken together form conclusive evidence against this view, and there can practically be no doubt that Buffon’s “Kevel” was a small individual of Gazella dorcas.

A third name invented by Buffon for one of the Gazelles, “La Corine,” has likewise been the source of some confusion. His figure and description were taken from a female animal at one time living in the park of Saint Cloud, but its locality was not given. Owing to the fact that some horns, brought home by Adanson from Senegal, were subsequently referred to Buffon’s “Corine,” the name Gazella corinna (founded upon Buffon’s “Corine”) has been sometimes applied to the Gazella rufifrons of Senegal. But, so far as we can judge from Buffon’s figure and description, the real type of Buffon’s “Corine” must have been merely an ordinary female of Gazella dorcas, although there is some difficulty on the subject in consequence of the discrepancy between Buffon’s figure and his description. As Thomas has shown in his observations upon this point (P. Z. S. 1894, p. 469), it seems that a wholly satisfactory determination of Buffon’s “Corine” is barely possible.

It is manifest, however, that the names “kevella” and “corinna” cannot be safely assigned to any other Gazelle than Gazella dorcas.

The many systematists whose works we have quoted above in our list of synonyms added very little to our knowledge of this Gazelle beyond the fact that it was supposed to be distributed all over North Africa from Morocco to Egypt and to be also found in Palestine and Syria. It is only quite recently that we have ascertained some precise facts respecting the ranges of this and other Gazelles in the countries above mentioned, and even now our information on this subject is by no means perfect.

Commencing with Morocco, there is no doubt, we believe, from the testimony of various travellers, that a small Gazelle of this group does occur in the interior of that country and that it is probably of this species, but we have never had an opportunity of examining Moroccan specimens. In Algeria we have more definite information available.

From the days of Shaw the “Common Gazelle” has been recognized as an inhabitant of the “Barbary States.” The French naturalist Loche included it in his catalogue of 1858, but is not clear in distinguishing it from its allied species. Canon Tristram, in the ‘Great Sahara,’ published two years later, informs us that this Gazelle is found in small troops in every portion of the Sahara, and is the principal large game to be depended on for food, especially in the neighbourhood of the dayats beyond Laghouat, where pasturage is abundant. The fawns are dropped in the early summer, and follow the dam until towards the end of the autumn. The Bedouin gather the droppings, which have a strong aromatic scent, to mix with snuff.

In the pages of the ‘Exploration Scientifique de l’Algérie’ devoted to Mammals, likewise from the pen of Loche, we find a little more information concerning the Algerian Gazelles, but it does not appear that Loche was at all clear in discriminating the various species that are there met with.

Good and precise information has, however, been given us on this subject by Mr. Alfred E. Pease, M.P., in his article on the “Antelopes of the Aures and Eastern Algerian Sahara,” published in the Zoological Society’s ‘Proceedings’ for 1896, the principal portion of which we must quote at full length:—

“It is with great respect and diffidence that I object to the Dorcas being described (see P. Z. S. 1894, p. 467) as ‘the common Gazelle of the Algerian Sahara generally,’ for the Dorcas is not met with in the Sahara proper, so far as I can learn, and in the Eastern Algerian Sahara at least is not to be found south of lat. 33°. The Dorcas in the Eastern Province and in Tunisia is the common Gazelle of the plains immediately south of the Aures Range, which form a sort of transitional zone between the mountains and the Sahara proper. Roughly speaking, this Gazelle is confined to a belt of country not more than 120 or 150 miles wide (and generally very much narrower). It may be found in plains, or even in low hills, within the southern mountain-chains, and on or near some of the sand-dunes on the confines of the Chotts. I have frequently seen it in the neighbourhood of the Chotts, but once into the Oued Souf and sand desert and all trace of it is lost and the Rhime takes its place. In the district of Sef el Menadi, where I have been twice with Sir E. G. Loder, and where he secured the first specimen of the Gazelle (the Rhime) which now bears his name, we found both Rhime and Dorcas on the same ground; and this place may be marked as the most northern limit which the Rhime ever inhabits, as it never leaves the sand, I think, whilst the Dorcas does not go much further south than this. Probably there are several of these isolated islands of sand where the Rhime may be found.

“The best male Dorcas that I have shot had horns a little over 31 cm. in length, the best female 25 cm. (measured along the curve).

“They vary a good deal in colour according to the ground they frequent, and there is a slight variety among members of the same band. In 1893 there was on the plain of Aïn Naga a pure white one, no doubt an albino; but though my hunter had frequently seen it, he was never able to find it for me.”

Passing on to the Beylik of Tunis, we have excellent notes on the Gazelles of this country drawn up by Mr. Joseph I. S. Whitaker, F.Z.S., published in the same volume of the Zoological Society’s ‘Proceedings.’ Mr. Whitaker writes of this Gazelle as follows:—

“The common Dorcas Gazelle is to be met with throughout the greater part of Central and Southern Tunisia, frequenting the vast semi-desert plains abundant in those districts, but not the more sandy inland country of the extreme south of the Regency, where it is replaced by another species. So far as I can ascertain, the Dorcas Gazelle never occurs in the Tell country; but I have observed it in the neighbourhood of Kairouan, which is probably the extreme northern limit of the range of this species in the Regency. On the extensive plains to the west of Gafsa I have found it particularly abundant; and I understand it is plentiful in the neighbourhood of the Chott Djerid, and throughout a considerable portion of the coast-country of the south, but not in the true desert further inland, where sand-dunes take the place of the stony scrub-covered plains. It may occasionally stray into the sand country, but this is exceptional.

“In winter the Dorcas Gazelle congregates in large herds, often numbering over one hundred individuals; but in spring these herds break up, and one then meets with the Gazelles in small parties or singly. The female G. dorcas, I am told, gives birth to but one young one at a time, and this generally in the month of April.

“The horns of this species vary considerably both in size and in shape. As a rule, those of the adult male are stout, deeply annulate, and lyrate, measuring from 10 to 13 inches in length along the front curve; those of the female are much shorter, straighter, smoother, and more slender.

“I may here mention that I have specimens of the Dorcas Gazelle from the country south of the Chott Djerid, which are somewhat paler in colour than the ordinary form. No doubt this variation in colouring is due to some difference in the nature of the soil and surroundings of the districts from whence these particular specimens came.”

So little is known of the natural history of Tripoli and Barca that we can only presume that the Dorcas Gazelle ranges through these countries on its way to Egypt, where it is well known to be abundant in the Western Desert. Sclater examined large numbers of both sexes of this species in the Zoological Garden of Gizeh near Cairo in 1895 from this locality[8], and several specimens from the same source have been received in exchange by the Zoological Society of London. Our figures of both sexes of the Dorcas Gazelle (Plate LVII.) have been prepared by Mr. Smit from examples thus obtained.

In the eastern desert of Egypt the Dorcas Gazelle appears in these days to be not nearly so common. Mr. E. N. Buxton, who traversed the eastern desert in his expedition after Capra sinaitica, tells us that two or three Gazelles together were the most he ever saw at one time. Between the Nile and the granite mountains 80 miles to the east, a very arid district, Mr. Buxton only saw Gazelles once. They were more numerous among the foot hills of the Kettar range and the porphyry mountains, for the obvious reason that there is more vegetation there.

The Gazelles frequently depicted in the paintings of the ancient Egyptian tombs and temples were, no doubt, usually Gazella dorcas in Lower, and G. isabella in Upper Egypt, although they were probably also well acquainted with G. arabica. Dr. Hartmann in his interesting disquisition on the animals of these paintings (Zeitschr. f. Aegyptische Sprache und Alterthumskunde, 1864, p. 22) gives us the hieroglyphic symbols of the Gazelle, and its corresponding name as “Gahés.” It was evidently a common object of chase even in those days.

Crossing over into the Holy Land, we find the Dorcas Gazelle registered in Canon Tristram’s ‘Fauna and Flora of Palestine’ as met with in all suitable localities. From the same author’s ‘Natural History of the Bible’ we extract the following passages relating to this favourite animal:—

“The Gazelle (Gazella dorcas) is by far the most abundant of all the large game in Palestine; indeed it is the only wild animal of the chase which an ordinary traveller has any chance of seeing. Small herds of gazelles are to be found in every part of the country, and in the south they congregate in herds of nearly 100 together. One such herd I met with at the southern end of the Jebel Usdum, or salt mountain, south of the Dead Sea, where they had congregated to drink of the only sweet spring within several miles, Ain Beida. Though generally considered an animal of the desert and the plains, the gazelle appears at home everywhere. It shares the rocks of Engedi with the wild goats; it dashes over the wide expanse of the desert beyond Beersheba; it canters in single file under the monastery of Marsaba. We found it in the glades of Carmel, and it often springs from its leafy covert on the back of Tabor, and screens itself under the thorn bushes of Gennesaret. Among the grey hills of Galilee it is still ‘the roe upon the mountains of Bether,’ and I have seen a little troop of gazelles feeding on the Mount of Olives, close to Jerusalem itself. While in the open grounds of the south it is the wildest of game, and can only be approached, unless by chance, at its accustomed drinking-places, and that before the dawn of morning; in the glades of Galilee it is very easily surprised, and trusts to the concealment of its covert for safety. I have repeatedly startled the gazelle from a brake only a few yards in front of me, and once, when ensconced out of sight in a storax bush, I watched a pair of gazelles with their kid, which the dam was suckling. Ever and anon both the soft-eyed parents would gambol with it as though fawns themselves.”

Canon Tristram describes the mode of hunting Gazelles practised by the Arabs as follows:—

“The usual way of hunting the Gazelle is by lying in wait, either at its watering-places, which are always known to the Arabs, or in the defiles in the rocky districts. A more wholesale mode is practised in the Houran, by driving a herd into a decoy-enclosure, with a pitfall on the other side, where they are easily taken. When in company with great sheikhs, I have more than once had an opportunity of witnessing the chase of the Gazelle, after the only fashion which the high-bred Bedouin thinks sportsmanlike, viz. with the greyhound or the falcon, or more often with both combined. When the greyhound, which is the large Persian dog, with long silky ears and silky tail, is employed alone, success is very uncertain, and the ‘roe’ often ‘delivers itself from the hand of the hunter.’ When the chase is conducted with the falcon alone, the bird is trained to dash repeatedly at the head of the victim, taking an instinctive care not to impale itself on the horns (which, nevertheless, often happens), and by its feints so to delay the quarry that the horsemen are able to come up with it. But the favourite chase is by both bird and dog. The birds are first swung off at the Gazelle, and make repeated swoops, while the greyhound gains upon it and seizes it. With a well-trained bird the poor beast can rarely escape in this chase, unless he have a long start of the hunter. The flesh of the Gazelle, though of high repute, we did not find so savoury as that of the wild goat. Indeed it was generally very dry and always lean, but our taste is not that of the Arabs.”

In the desert country east of the Jordan, Canon Tristram tells us, the Dorcas Gazelle is replaced by the Arabian Gazelle (G. arabica); but a Gazelle, probably of this species, is found in the Syrian Desert north of Damascus, as testified by many writers.

In his interesting volume on ‘Palmyra and Zenobia,’ Dr. William Wright, describing his journey between Damascus and Palmyra, says:—

“We passed several gazelle-traps near Karyetan. Little walls converge to a field from a great distance, increasing in height as they approach the field. The field is walled round, leaving gaps at intervals, outside of which there are deep pits. The Gazelles, led on by curiosity, and guided by the little walls, march boldly into the field, and when they are startled, they rush out wildly in a panic, at the breaches, and tumble into the pits. Sometimes forty or fifty are taken out of a pit alive at one time.”

But, as we are informed in the valuable papers on the Mammals of Asia Minor published by Messrs. Danford and Alston in the Zoological Society’s ‘Proceedings’ for 1877 and 1880, the Dorcas Gazelle ranges far north of Syria. Danford states that it is “not uncommon” on the plain of Tchukurova and about Tarsus and Adana in the south-east of Asia Minor, and that it is “common” in the wooded valley of the Pyramus on the plain of Bazardjik and extends thence into the stony wooded uplands on the right bank of the Northern Euphrates.

When taken young, the Dorcas Gazelle is easily tamed and becomes very docile and affectionate. It is frequently kept in captivity by the Arabs and thus passes into the hands of Europeans who visit the East. As will be seen by reference to the Zoological Society’s List of Animals, specimens of this species reach the Gardens every year. But they cannot be said to thrive in the climate of England, where they miss the bright sun and dry air of their native deserts, and seldom produce young.

The series of examples of this Gazelle in the National Collection is by no means a full one, and wild-killed examples with ascertained localities from different parts of its range are much wanted. At the present time, besides a number of old specimens without localities, there are only in the collection an adult male from Biskra in Algeria presented by Sir Edmund Loder, a pair of skins from the same place presented by Messrs. Rowland Ward and Co., and a skull from Egypt presented by the late Sir Gardner Wilkinson. The accompanying illustration (fig. 57) gives a front view of a good head of this Gazelle prepared by Mr. Smit from these specimens.

January, 1898.

Fig. 57.

Head of the Dorcas Gazelle, ♂.

(From specimens in the British Museum.)

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. LVIII.

J. Smit del. et lith.

Hanhart imp.

The Edmi Gazelle.

GAZELLA CUVIERI.

Published by R H Porter.

88. THE EDMI GAZELLE.
GAZELLA CUVIERI (Ogilby).
[PLATE LVIII.]

Kevel gris, F. Cuv. H. N. Mamm. (fol.) iii. livr. lvii. (1827), and iv. livr. lxix. (1833).

Antilope cuvieri, Og. P. Z. S. 1840, p. 34 (Mogador); Schinz, Syn. Mamm. ii. p. 399 (1845); id. Mon. Antil. pl. 2 a (1848); Fraser, Zool. Typ. pl. xvii. (1849).

Gazella cuvieri, Gray, Hand-l. Rum. B. M. p. 107 (1873); Brooke, P. Z. S. 1873, p. 542; Scl. List Vert. An. Z. S. (8) p. 140 (1883), (9) p. 154; Ward, Horn Meas. (1) p. 126 (1892), (2) p. 168 (1896); Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 233 (1893); Thos. P. Z. S. 1894, p. 467; Pease, P. Z. S. 1896, p. 814; Whitaker, P. Z. S. 1896, p. 815.

Gazella dorcas, var. 3, Gray, Cat. Ung. B. M. p. 57 (1852).

Gazella cineraceus, Temm. Esq. Zool. Guin. p. 193 (1853) (from Kevel gris, F. Cuv.).

Gazella corinna, Loche, Cat. Mamm. Alg. p. 13 (1850); id. Expl. Alg., Mamm. p. 68 (1867) (nec Pall.).

Gazella kevella, Tristram, Great Sahara, p. 387 (1860); Lataste, Mamm. Barbarie (Act. Soc. Linn. Bord. xxxix.), sep. cop. p. 172 (1885); Buxton, P. Z. S. 1890, p. 363.

Vernacular Names:—Edmi of Arabs of Algeria (Pease); Edem in Tunis (Whitaker).

Size comparatively large; height at withers about 26 or 27 inches. Hair rather long, rough and coarse. General colour dull fawn. Face-markings distinct; the central facial band brownish fawn, with a black patch on the top of the nose, in front of which the muzzle is white. Ears long, pointed, their backs fawn. Dark lateral line and pygal band distinct, darker than back; light lateral line present, but little defined. Knee-brushes distinct.

Basal length of skull 7·35 inches, greatest breadth 3·6, muzzle to orbit 4·45.

Horns rather short in proportion to the size of the animal, thick, strongly ribbed, very slightly curved backwards, and but little divergent from each other; the tips slightly curved upwards and forwards.

Female. Similar, but horns shorter, slenderer, and straighter.

Hab. Morocco, Algeria, and Tunis.

The “Edmi” or Mountain Gazelle of Algeria, though it has often been confounded with the Dorcas, and has only been accurately known within the last few years, is without doubt an absolutely different species not only in structure, but in habits and mode of life. As Sir Victor Brooke has pointed out, it is easily distinguished from all its allies by its larger size, rough coat, dark colour, and long ears.

The first published information that we can certainly refer to this species is that of Frédéric Cuvier, who figured both sexes in his folio work on Mammals from specimens living in the Jardin des Plantes at Paris, but called it only “le Kevel gris,” without giving it any scientific designation.

Some time in 1839 a living female example of this Antelope was presented to the Zoological Society of London by Mr. W. Willshire, one of their corresponding members, who had procured it at Mogador. After its death in May 1840, Mr. Ogilby, who was at that time Secretary of the Society, and was specially interested in the study of mammals, brought the specimen before the notice of the Zoological Society at one of their scientific meetings, and proposed to name the species “cuvieri” after M. Frédéric Cuvier. Ogilby stated that he had observed examples of the same Gazelle in the Paris Museum, and that M. Cuvier would have described it had he, Ogilby, not done so. There can be no question therefore of Ogilby’s animal being the same as Cuvier’s “Kevel gris,” and that Gazella cuvieri is the earliest certain name to adopt for it.

In 1849 Fraser published a figure of this species in his ‘Zoologia Typica,’ taken from Ogilby’s typical specimen, which is now in the British Museum. Although imported from Mogador there can be little doubt that this example was originally obtained from the chain of the neighbouring Atlas. The Gazelles observed in the Great Atlas in company with Wild Sheep (Ovis tragelaphus) by Mr. W. B. Harris, F.R.G.S., on his journey from Morocco to Tafilat in 1893, were no doubt Gazella cuvieri.

Passing on to Algeria we find that Loche appears to have referred to this Antelope under the name Gazella corinna, and that Canon Tristram and Lataste have called it Gazella kevella. We have already shown, however, that both these names are properly to be applied to the Dorcas Gazelle.

In 1890, Mr. Edward Buxton met with this Gazelle during a shooting excursion into the Atlas, of which he has given us a most interesting account in one of the chapters of his ‘Short Stalks.’ Mr. Buxton’s principal object of pursuit on that occasion was the Aroui or Barbary Sheep (Ovis tragelaphus), but he also had the good fortune to obtain a fine head of the Mountain Gazelle, which he exhibited at a meeting of the Zoological Society on March 31st of that year (see P. Z. S. 1890, p. 363).

Mr. Buxton tells us, in the course of the remarks he made on this occasion, that the Mountain Gazelle of Algeria is “about twice the size of the Gazelle of the plains (Gazella dorcas), and has straight instead of lyre-shaped horns. It lives on the same kind of steep ground as the Aroui, perhaps at a rather lower elevation. The fact that it is essentially a mountain animal is, I think, shown by its large callous knees, like those of a London cab-horse. The Aroui has the same. They are, I think, absent in Gazella dorcas. Another feature consists in the curious hollows or pouches on each side of the testicles.”

In his ‘Short Stalks’ Mr. Buxton gives us full particulars of his adventures in obtaining the much-coveted head of this animal above referred to, and illustrates them by a beautiful picture of a group of these Gazelles drawn and engraved after his instructions by Mr. G. E. Lodge.

In his field-notes on the Antelopes of Eastern Algeria, published in the Zoological Society’s ‘Proceedings’ for 1896, Mr. A. E. Pease speaks as follows of the present species:—

“This Gazelle is by no means so rare as is generally supposed, though it is difficult to secure, its quickness and facility for eluding observation being equal almost to that of the Larrowi (Ovis tragelaphus). There is hardly a mountain in the southern ranges of the Aures where they are unknown, and I have seen them on almost every mountain from far to the N.W. of Biskra to the Tunisian frontier at Negrine. I know that they are common on the Djebel Cherchar, and I have seen them as far north as the hills and woods of Melagon, near Chelia. I have seldom seen more than eight in a herd, and far more frequently they are met with singly and in pairs, or bands of three to five. While frequenting the same difficult ground as the Larrowi, it is more usual to find them in larger numbers on those mountains which are lower than the highest. I have seen them on the plateaux and plains among the mountains, and they frequently descend at night to feed on the barley in the valleys, as also does the Larrowi. The best male horns I have measure rather more than 36 cm. along the curve.”

Crossing the frontier of Algeria into Tunis we find the Edmi Gazelle prevalent in suitable districts throughout that country. Mr. J. I. S. Whitaker, F.Z.S., who knows Tunis and its birds and mammals well, writes, in the same volume of the ‘Proceedings’ as we have quoted above, of his experiences of this animal as follows:—

“The Mountain Gazelle, the Edmi or Edem of the Arabs—the Tunisians use the latter name—is to be found sparingly on most of the mountains throughout the Tunisian Regency. Essentially a mountain species, as its name implies, it never occurs, so far as I am aware, on the plains, or at any distance from hilly country.

“I have met with the Edmi, and obtained specimens of it, on some of the higher ranges near Kasrin, in Central Tunis, and have found it in the south near Gafsa and Tamerza. In the north of the Regency it seems to occur on the mountains near Zaghouan, the extreme eastern range of the Atlas, and in the neighbourhood of Ghardimaou, on the Algerio-Tunisian frontier, from both of which places M. Blanc, the naturalist in Tunis, tells me he has received specimens in the flesh. I myself have also been offered Edmi-shooting on an estate only some twenty miles or so south of Tunis. It seems evident, therefore, that the species has a wide range in the Regency, although perhaps it is nowhere very abundant.

“The Edmi is to be found either in small herds or singly, and occasionally, though not as a rule, at a considerable elevation. On the Djebel Selloum and Djebel Semama, near Kasrin, both of which mountains are nearly 4000 feet above sea-level, I found the Gazelles about halfway up. These mountains, although steep in places and with some very rugged scarps, are in great part well-wooded with Aleppo pines, and on the lower slopes with a thick undergrowth of the usual maquis vegetation. In this brushwood the Gazelles easily escape detection and are naturally not very often seen. Although fond of cover, the Edmi will adapt itself to circumstances, and seems equally at home on the arid mountains of the south, where there is but little vegetation, and that merely of a dwarf description, affording slight shelter. In the spring, when my hunting-trips after Aoudad (Ovis tragelaphus) and Edmi have taken place, there has always been a little water on these mountains; but for some months of the year, I am told, the watercourses are dry, and the animals then, should they wish to drink, must travel some distance. That both these species, however, shift their quarters constantly I feel convinced, force of circumstances rendering them as much nomads as the Arabs themselves.

“The Edmi is very much larger than the Dorcas Gazelle, its weight being almost double. Its coat is darker in colour and with rather longer and coarser hair, while its knees, besides having very strongly developed brushes, show distinct callosities. The horns in the adult male are very stout and deeply annulated, and generally with but little curve, measuring about 13 inches, or even more in fine specimens. Those of the female are much more slender and smoother, but sometimes of fair length, some in my possession measuring 11 inches.”

Among the wood-blocks left ready for use by the late Sir Victor Brooke was a figure of a fine head of a male of this Gazelle drawn by Mr. Smit, of which we now give an impression.

Fig. 58.

Head of Edmi Gazelle, ♂.

(Drawn by Smit under the direction of
the late Sir Victor Brooke.)

The Edmi Gazelle is not often brought alive to Europe, but besides Ogilby’s type specimen, which we have already mentioned, at least three others have been exhibited at various times in the Zoological Society’s menagerie. An example of this species was first obtained in 1839, as mentioned in the Report of the Council for 1840, and another was acquired in November 1862. Others were presented by Capt. Alan Gardner, R.N., in June 1865, and by Rear-Admiral Sir William Hall, R.N., in May 1867. Sclater observed a female of this Gazelle in the Zoological Garden of Berlin in September 1897 (see P. Z. S. 1897, p. 813).

As we have already stated, the typical specimen of this Gazelle, formerly in the Zoological Society’s Collection, is now in the British Museum, as is also a stuffed female, originally presented by H.M. the Queen to the Zoological Society, but transferred to the National Collection in 1855. In the British Museum Gallery of Mammals will be found a good adult stuffed specimen of this Gazelle stated to be from near Biskra, Algeria, and presented by Mr. J. I. S. Whitaker. There are also some frontlets and horns of this species from the same locality presented by Messrs. Rowland Ward & Co.

We are greatly indebted to Sir Edmund Loder for a photograph of a head of a female of this Gazelle, taken from a specimen in his collection, which he himself shot on the 27th of February, 1893, on the Ahmar Khaddou Mountains, two days’ march east of Biskra. It shows very clearly the inferior size of the horns in this sex, and the long ears characteristic of the species.

Fig. 59.

Front view of head of Edmi Gazelle, ♀.

(From a photograph.)

Our illustration of the male of this Gazelle (Plate LVIII.) has been drawn by Mr. Smit from the Algerian specimen in the British Museum above referred to.

January, 1898.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. LIX.

J. Smit del. et lith.

Hanhart imp.

The Arabian Gazelle.

GAZELLA ARABICA.

Published by R. H Porter.

89. THE ARABIAN GAZELLE.
GAZELLA ARABICA (Licht.).
[PLATE LIX.]

Antilope arabica, Licht. Darst. Säug. pl. vi. (1827); Ehrenb. Symb. Phys. Decas i. pl. v. (1828); Fisch. Syn. Mamm. p. 460 (1829); Less. Compl. Buff. x. p. 287 (1836); Waterh. Cat. Mamm. Mus. Z. S. (2) p. 40 (1838); Oken, Allg. Nat. vii. p. 1371 (1838); Gerv. Dict. Sci. Nat. Supp. i. p. 261 (1840); Less. N. Tabl. R. A. Mamm. p. 176 (1842); Wagn. Schr. Säug. Suppl. iv. p. 407 (1844), v. p. 403 (1855); Reichenb. Säug. iii. pl. xxxiii. fig. 188 (1845); Schinz, Syn. Mamm. ii. p. 399 (1845); id. Mon. Antil. p. 4, pl. ii. (1848); Gieb. Säug. p. 307 (1853); Heugl. Faun. roth. Meer, Peterm. Mitth. 1861, p. 16; id. Ant. u. Büff. N.O.-Afr. (N. Act. Leop. xxx. pt. 2) p. 5 (1863).

Gazella arabica, Temm. Esq. Zool. Guin. p. 193 (1853); Tristr. P. Z. S. 1866, p. 86; id. Faun. & Flor. Pal. p. 26 (1884) (Palestine); Fitz. SB. Wien, lix. p. 159; Blanf. Zool. Abyss, p. 261, pl. i. fig. 3 (horns) (1870); Brooke, P. Z. S. 1873, p. 544, 1874, p. 141 (fig., head); Scl. List Vert. An. Z. S. (1) p. 140 (1883), (2) p. 981 (1896); Jent. Cat. Ost. Leyd. Mus. (Mus. Pays-Bas, ix.) p. 137 (1887); W. Scl. Cat. Mamm. Calc. Mus. ii. p. 458 (1891); Jent. Cat. Mamm. Leyd. Mus. (Mus. Pays-Bas, xi.) p. 168 (1892); Ward, Horn Meas. (1) p. 114 (1892), (2) p. 156 (1896); Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 179 (1893); Scl. P. Z. S. 1897, p. 812 (Hodeidah).

Antilope cora, H. Sm. Griff. An. K. iv. p. 216, v. p. 333 (1827); Less. Compl. Buff. x. p. 287 (1836).

Gazella cora, Gray, List Mamm. B. M. p. 161 (1843).

Antilope dorcas, var. δ, Sund. Pecora, K. Vet.-Ak. Handl. 1845, p. 268 (1847); id. Hornschuch’s Transl., Arch. Skand. Beitr. ii. p. 264; Reprint, p. 84 (1848).

Gazella vera, Gray, Knowsl. Men. pl. iii. (1850) (cf. Scl. P. Z. S. 1896, p. 984).

Gazella bennetti, Yerb. & Thos. P. Z. S. 1895, p. 555 (Aden).

Vernacular Names:—Ghasal of Arabs, like G. dorcas; Ariel or Aiel in Syria (Ehrenberg).

Size medium; height at withers about 24 or 25 inches. General colour dark smoky fawn, much darker than in the allied species. Facial markings distinct; central facial band dark rufous-fawn, with a black spot on the nose. Ears of medium length, brownish-fawn behind. Dark lateral and pygal bands smoky brown; light lateral band very slightly lighter than the back. Limbs more rufous than body; knee-brushes brown or black.

Skull with short broad nasals; anteorbital fossæ shallow in the only good skull available. Basal length 6·75 inches, greatest breadth 3·3, muzzle to orbit 3·7.

Horns thick and rather short, almost straight and parallel to each other, a little curved backwards below, and forwards above.

Female. Similar to the male, but horns short and straight.

Hab. Western Arabia.

Although the Arabian Gazelle was described and figured as long ago as 1827, and specimens of it are by no means rare in captivity, we have as yet received little information about its exact range and its mode of life. But the great peninsula of Arabia still remains, we must recollect, one of the largest tracts on the earth’s surface that has been least explored by scientific travellers.

Hemprich and Ehrenberg, the discoverers of this Gazelle, met with it during their travels on the eastern coast of the Red Sea, and transmitted specimens of both sexes to the Berlin Museum. Here they were first described and figured by Lichtenstein in his ‘Darstellung der Säugethiere’—a work devoted to making known the riches of the Mammal-collection of the great Institution of which he was the Director.

Following Hemprich and Ehrenberg’s MS., Lichtenstein named the species “Antilope arabica,” and a short time afterwards it was again described and figured by Ehrenberg in his ‘Symbolæ Physicæ’ under the same designation.

Ehrenberg informs us that he and his fellow-traveller Hemprich obtained their first specimens of this Gazelle at Hamam el Faraun, on the coast of the Sinaitic Peninsula between Suez and Tor, and subsequently found it abundant on the island of Farsan on the Arabian coast of the Red Sea. They also observed Gazelles which they believed to be of the same species near Baalbec in Syria, but these, we think, are more likely to have been Gazella dorcas.

Succeeding authorities have added very little to our knowledge of this Gazelle. Canon Tristram, in his ‘Fauna and Flora’ of Palestine, mentions a Gazelle occurring in the “desert-country east of the Jordan” as being probably of this species; but we believe that he did not obtain any good specimens of it. Dr. Blanford, in his volume on the ‘Geology and Zoology of Abyssinia,’ has figured (for comparison) a head of this species obtained by Captain Heysham near Mocha, S.W. Arabia; and in the Zoological Society’s ‘Proceedings’ for 1874, the late Sir Victor Brooke gave a woodcut of the head of this Gazelle, which, by the kind permission of the Society, we are enabled to reproduce.

Fig. 60.

Head of Arabian Gazelle.

(P. Z. S. 1874, p. 141.)

Living examples of the Arabian Gazelle are easily obtained at Aden and at Hodeidah, Jeddah, and other Arabian ports on the Red Sea, and are often brought to Europe. We have little doubt that the Gazelles in the Derby Menagerie figured by Waterhouse Hawkins in the third plate of the ‘Gleanings,’ and there called by Lord Derby’s MS. name, Gazella vera, were of this species, though in the text they are referred to as G. dorcas and in the list of plates as G. cuvieri. The Zoological Society of London appear to have received their first specimens in 1874[9], and since that date (as will be seen by their published Lists of Animals) have acquired many examples, chiefly by presentation. At the present time there are two fine males in the Society’s Gardens, both brought from Aden and presented—one by Mr. R. G. Buchanan and the other by Mr. J. Benett Stanford, F.Z.S. From the former of these Mr. Smit’s drawing (Plate LIX.) was taken.

The British Museum has lately acquired from the Zoological Society a good male example of this Gazelle, which was obtained at Aden and brought alive to London. It has been mounted for the Mammal Gallery. The Museum also has the skull from Mocha figured by Dr. Blanford, as already mentioned, and since presented by him to the collection, and the skin of a young animal from Gilead, obtained by Canon Tristram, the determination of which is, however, somewhat doubtful.

January, 1898.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. LX.

J. Smit del. et lith.

Hanhart imp.

The Indian Gazelle.

GAZELLA BENNETTI.

Published by R. H. Porter.

90. THE INDIAN GAZELLE.
GAZELLA BENNETTI (Sykes).
[PLATE LX.]

Antilope bennettii, Sykes, P. Z. S. 1831, p. 104; Less. Compl. Buff. x. p. 287 (1836); Waterh. Cat. Mamm. Mus. Z. S. (2) p. 40 (1838); Laurill. Dict. Univ. d’H. N. i. p. 617 (1839); Gerv. Dict. Sci. Nat. Supp. i. p. 261 (1840); Less. N. Tabl. R. A., Mamm. p. 176 (1842); Schinz, Syn. Mamm. ii. p. 400 (1845); id. Mon. Antil. pl. iii. b (1848); Reichenb. Säug. iii. p. 111 (1845); Fraser, Zool. Typica, pl. xvi. (1849); Horsf. Cat. Mamm. E. I. C. p. 166 (1851); Wagn. Schr. Säug. Supp. v. p. 405 (1855).

Gazella bennettii, Gray, List Mamm. B. M. p. 161 (1843); id. Ann. Mag. N. H. (1) xviii. p. 231 (1846); Hutton, J. A. S. B. xv. p. 150 (1846) (Neemuch); Gray, List Ost. B. M. p. 56 (1847); id. Knowsl. Men. p. 4 (1850); Temm. Esq. Zool. Guin. p. 193 (1853); Jerd. Mamm. Ind. p. 280 (1867); Blanf. J. A. S. B. xxxvi. p. 196 (1867); Kinloch, Large Game Shooting, p. 57, pl. (1869); McMaster, Notes on Jerdon, pp. 141 & 249 (1870); Blanf. Zool. Abyss. p. 261, pl. i. fig. 2 (horns) (1870); Stoliczka, J. A. S. B. xli. p. 229 (1872); Blanf. P. Z. S. 1873, p. 315 (distribution); Brooks, P. Z. S. 1873, p. 544; Blanf. E. Persia, ii. p. 91 (1876); Ball, P. A. S. B. 1877, p. 172; Scl. List Vert. An. Z. S. (8) p. 141 (1883), (9) p. 155 (1896); Flow. & Gars. Cat. Coll. Surg. ii. p. 264 (1884); Sterndale, Mamm. Ind. p. 463 (1884); Murray, Zool. Sind, p. 56 (1884); Blanf. Faun. Brit. Ind., Mamm. p. 526 (1891); W. Scl. Cat. Mamm. Calc. Mus. ii. p. 159 (1891); Jent. Cat. Mamm. Leyd. Mus. (Mus. Pays-Bas, xi.) p. 168 (1892); Ward, Horn Meas. (1) p. 124 (1892), (2) p. 166 (1896); Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 175 (1893); Percy, Badm. Big Game Shooting, ii. p. 355 (1894).

Tragops bennettii, Hodgs. J. A. S. B. 1847, p. 11, & xvi. p. 695; Gray, P. Z. S. 1850, p. 116; id. Cat. Ung. B. M. p. 62 (1852); Adams, P. Z. S. 1858, p. 522 (Punjab); Gerr. Cat. Bones Mamm. B. M. p. 233 (1862); Blyth, Cat. Mamm. Mus. As. Soc. p. 173 (1863); Gray, Cat. Rum. B. M. p. 39 (1872); id. Hand-l. Rum. B. M. p. 108 (1873).

Tragopsis bennettii, Fitz. SB. Wien, lix. p. 157 (1869).

Antilope arabica, Elliot, Madr. Journ. x. p. 223 (1839) (Mahratta Country).

Gazella christii, Gray, Blyth, J. A. S. B. xi. p. 452 (1842); Hutton, J. A. S. B. xv. p. 151 (1846).

Antilope hazenna, I. Geoffr. St.-Hil. Voy. Jacq., Mamm. p. 74, Atl. pl. vi. (1844); Schinz, Mon. Ant. pl. xxi. a (1848); Wagn. Schr. Säug. Supp. v. p. 406 (1855).

Gazella hazenna, Temm. Esq. Zool. Guin. p. 193 (1853).

Tragopsis hazenna, Fitz. SB. Wien, lix. p. 157 (1869).

Gazella fuscifrons, Blanf. P. Z. S. 1873, p. 317 (fig., head ♀) (Jalk, Persia); Brooke, P. Z. S. 1873, p. 545; Blanf. E. Persia, ii. p. 92 (1876); Sterndale, Mamm. Ind. p. 465 (1884); W. Scl. Cat. Mamm. Calc. Mus. ii. p. 160 (1891).

Vernacular Names:—Chinkára, Chikára, Kol-punch in Hindustani; Phaskela in N.W. Provinces; Ask or Ast and Ahu in Baluchistan; Khazm in Brahmi; Kalsipi in Mahratta; Tiska, Budári, or Mudári in Canarese; Sank-húlé in Mysore; Porsya ♂, Chari ♀ in Baori; Burudu-jinka in Telugu; Ravine-Deer of many Anglo-Indians.

Size medium; height at withers 24 to 25 inches. General colour dull fawn. Facial markings distinct, the darker ones rufous-fawn; a black spot on the top of the nose. Ears of medium length, fawn-coloured behind. Dark lateral and pygal bands brownish fawn, scarcely darker than the back; light lateral bands scarcely perceptible; knee-brushes present.

Skull with deep anteorbital fossæ:—Basal length 7·2 inches, greatest breadth 3·45, muzzle to orbit 4.

Horns thick, heavily ribbed, close together, diverging little but evenly, gently curved backwards below and forwards at their tips.

Female. Similar to the male, but horns straight, simple, about two-thirds the length of those of the male.

Hab. Indian Peninsula, extending westwards through Baluchistan to the Persian Gulf.

Like the Lion and the Cheetah this Gazelle belongs to an Ethiopian type of mammals, and was originally, no doubt, an intruder into India from the west. But, as will be seen when we come to describe its range, it has now spread itself over the greater part of the peninsula except on the eastern side. On the west the Indian Gazelle extends far along the Mekran coast to the Persian Gulf, and there meets the Arabian Gazelle, of which it is undoubtedly a very close ally, although the latter is always much darker on the back.

Although the Indian Gazelle, or “Ravine-Deer,” as it is usually termed by Europeans, was doubtless known to the sportsmen of British India long ago, it was not made known to science until 1831, when Col. Sykes, one of the earliest pioneers in Indian natural history, described it in a communication made to the Zoological Society of London. Sykes, in his paper on the Mammals of the Deccan read before the Society in July of that year, proposed to name it Antilope bennetti, after the late Edward Turner Bennett, a well-known naturalist, who was at that time Vice-Secretary of the Society. Sykes met with this Antelope on the rocky hills of the Deccan “in groups rarely exceeding three or four in number, and very frequently solitary.” In 1849, Fraser published a figure of this species in his ‘Zoologia Typica,’ taken from one of Sykes’s male specimens in the British Museum, which is still in the National Collection, although not in the exhibition gallery. In 1844, in his description of the mammals of Jacquemont’s ‘Voyage dans l’Inde,’ Isidore Geoffr. St. Hilaire described and figured an Antilope hazenna, which he at that time considered to be different from the present animal. But there can be no doubt that Jacquemont’s specimens, which were obtained at Malwa in Central India, are the same as Gazella bennetti, and Sykes’s term being the oldest has been universally employed as the designation of this species. As we shall presently show, Gazella christii of Gray, from Sind, and Gazella fuscifrons of Blanford, from Baluchistan, are names which have been based on what are merely slightly divergent forms of Gazella bennetti.

From the researches of Elliot, Jerdon, Blyth, Blanford, and other authorities on the mammals of British India, we are now well acquainted with the range of this Gazelle in the peninsula and adjoining lands to the west. Dr. Blanford describes it as extending throughout the plains and low hills of North-western and Central India, and thence through Baluchistan to the eastern shore of the Persian Gulf. In the Indian peninsula, he continues, the Indian Gazelle ranges in suitable localities throughout the Punjab, Sind, Rajputana, the N.W. Provinces, and the whole of the Bombay Presidency with the exception of the Western Ghats and Konkan; it also occurs in Central India as far east as Palamow and Western Sargiya, and in the Central Provinces as far east as Seoni and Chánda, together with the Hyderabad territories and the Madras Presidency to a little south of the Kistna, Gazelles being found at Anantapur, south of Kurnool, and in Northern Mysore.

For an account of the habits of the Indian Gazelle and the modes of its chase, we cannot do better than refer to the last edition of General Kinloch’s ‘Large Game Shooting,’ where they are described as follows:—

“The favourite haunts of this Gazelle are extensive wastes of sandy or rocky ground, sprinkled with low bushes, and interspersed here and there with patches of cultivation. Thick jungles they avoid; and they are seldom to be met with in districts which are entirely under crop. During the daytime they resort to secluded spots where they are not subject to annoyance, and in the mornings and evenings they frequently repair to fields of young grain, sometimes in close proximity to villages.

“In some places they are extremely wild, and can only be approached by the most careful stalking; in other localities they are comparatively tame, and will allow the sportsman to walk openly to within easy range. At most times, however, they are restless little animals, continually on the move, and they have a provoking way of trotting off with a switch of their black tails the moment that they suspect danger.

“On open plains the best way of getting within shot of them is under cover of a steady shooting horse. As they afford but a small mark, and seldom remain still very long, quick as well as accurate shooting is required, and beginners in the art of rifle shooting will find them excellent practice.

“The officers of the Guides used to hawk the Gazelle in the neighbourhood of Hótó Mardán, the Falcons used for the purpose being nestling ‘charghs’ (Falco sacer). Adult caught birds cannot be trained for this sport, and the nestlings had to be obtained from the distant province of Balkh by the assistance of some of the Kábúl Sirdárs. In the present state of our relations with Áfghánístán, the Falcons cannot be procured, and the sport has, for the present at any rate, died out. The hawks alone could not kill a Gazelle, but were assisted by greyhounds, which used to pull it down after the hawks had confused and stunned it by repeated blows. I regret that I never had an opportunity of witnessing the flight, which has been described to me as very interesting and exciting.”

Dr. Blanford tells us that this Gazelle lives on grass and on the leaves of bushes, and, so far as he is aware, never drinks. “I have seen it,” he says, “in the deserts of Sind in places where the only water for twenty miles round was procured from wells; and in spots in Western and Central India where, in the hot weather, the only water to be obtained was in small pools remaining in the beds of streams. But around these pools, in which the tracks of almost every animal in the forest was to be seen, I never yet saw the very peculiarly formed tracks of the Gazelle, although it frequently abounded in the neighbourhood. The four-horned Antelope, on the other hand, drinks habitually.”

Gazella christii, which we have alluded to above as synonymous with this species, was a MS. name of the late Dr. Gray, which appears to have been first published by Blyth in 1842, and applied to a pale form of the present animal from Kutch and Sind. But more recent researches have shown that it is not properly separable from the typical Gazella bennetti.

Gazella fuscifrons, another synonym also mentioned above, was based by Dr. Blanford in 1873 on a doe with distinctly ringed horns and with portions of the face dark brown, obtained in Baluchistan. But the late Sir O. B. St. John subsequently procured what he justly concluded to be the male of this form, which, as acknowledged by Dr. Blanford himself, proved to be not distinct from Gazella bennetti. By the kindness of the Zoological Society we are enabled to reproduce Dr. Blanford’s figures of the head of Gazella fuscifrons, which, except for the slight differences above mentioned, give an equally good idea of the head of the typical G. bennetti.

Fig. 61.

Head of Gazella fuscifrons, ♀.

(P. Z. S. 1873, p. 317.)

The Indian Gazelle is frequently brought to Europe alive, though it is not so common in our menageries as Gazella dorcas, G. subgutturosa, and some other species. According to the Zoological Society’s books, the first examples were received in 1838, and since 1860, as will be seen by the printed lists, about twelve specimens have been exhibited. A pair presented by Capt. H. J. Hope Edwards, in April 1883, bred, and the female gave birth to a young one in November of that year; but, like other Gazelles, this species does not usually thrive in the dull climate of England.

As is the case with many common animals, the British Museum does not contain a good series of this Gazelle, and specimens with exact localities from all parts of its range are much required. Besides the old mounted examples from the Deccan presented by Col. Sykes and already alluded to, it possesses only a skin from Sind received from the Karachi Museum, and several skulls and pairs of horns from the Salt Range of the Punjâb and Kelat, received in the Hume Collection.

Our figures of this species (Plate LX.) have been prepared by Mr. Smit—the male from the skin received from the Karachi Museum, and the female from Col. Sykes’s specimen.

January, 1898.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. LXI.

J. Smit lith.

Hanhart imp.

Speke’s Gazelle.

GAZELLA SPEKEI.

Published by R. H. Porter.

91. SPEKE’S GAZELLE.
GAZELLA SPEKEI, Blyth.
[PLATE LXI.]

Gazella, sp.?, Blyth, J. As. Soc. Beng. xxiv. p. 297 (1856).

“Gazella cuvieri, Blyth,” Speke, Rep. Zool. Coll. Somali, p. 8 (1860).

Gazella spekei, Blyth, Cat. Mamm. Mus. As. Soc. p. 172 (1863); Blanf. Zool. Abyss. p. 261, pl. i. fig. 5 (horns) (1870); Brooke, P. Z. S. 1873, p. 543; Kohl, Ann. Mus. Wien, i. p. 77, pls. iii., iv. fig. 3, & v. fig. 1 (animal & skull) (1886); Thos. P. Z. S. 1891, p. 210; W. Scl. Cat. Mamm. Calc. Mus. ii. p. 158 (1891); Scl. P. Z. S. 1892, pp. 100 & 118; Swayne, P. Z. S. 1892, p. 306; Ward, Horn Meas. (1) p. 112 (1892), (2) p. 153 (1896); Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 234 (1893); Swayne, Somaliland, p. 316 (fig., head) (1895); Hoyos, Aulihan, p. 179, pl. x. fig. 3 (1895); Elliot, Publ. Chicago Mus., Zool. i. p. 120 (1897); Scl. P. Z. S. 1897, p. 920 (fig., head).

Gazella, sp. inc., Lort Phillips, P. Z. S. 1885, p. 932.

Gazella naso, Scl. P. Z. S. 1886, p. 504, pl. li. (head); id. in James’s Unknown Horn of Africa, p. 268, pl. iii. (1888).

Vernacular Name:—Dhero of Somalis (Swayne).

Size slightly greater than in G. dorcas; height at withers 23–24 inches. Body pale brownish fawn, the light lateral band but little paler than the back, then dark or dull blackish, not sharply defined. Central facial band brownish fawn; top of muzzle, over nasal bones, with a distinct blackish patch, in front of which there is a peculiar swollen and corrugated cushion of skin raised up above the level of the face, and extensible at the pleasure of the animal. Dark cheek-band narrow, indistinct, the light band above it broad and extending to the muzzle. Ears long, narrow, pointed, their backs whitish fawn. Knee-tufts present, brownish fawn. Pygal band very indistinct.

Skull with short broad nasals, the premaxillæ not or barely touching their outer corners. Basal length in an old male 6·5 inches, greatest breadth 3·35, muzzle to orbit 3·6.

Horns but slightly divergent, evenly and strongly curved backwards for three-fourths their length, their tips gently recurved upwards.

Female. Like the male, but the horns slender, little ridged, less curved, about three-fourths the length of those of the male.

Hab. Interior Plateau of Somaliland.

There can be no doubt that the two Gazelles which inhabit the maritime plain and the high inland plateau of Somaliland respectively, although they are closely allied, and have been confused together by some writers, belong to distinct species, distinguishable by well-marked characters. The Gazelle of the interior plateau, which we treat of first, when compared with that of the coast-land is at once recognizable by the generally browner colour, the darker lateral band, the black nose-spot, and above all by the wrinkled and elevated nose of the adult, which is not met with in the sister species.

Speke’s Gazelle was first discovered by the energetic African explorer, whose name it appropriately bears, during his expedition to Harar in the summer of 1854 in company with the late Capt. Sir Richard Burton[10]. Speke, who attended to the natural history of the expedition, forwarded the collections made upon this occasion to Blyth, at that time curator of the Asiatic Society’s Museum at Calcutta, and in the zenith of his zoological work. In his report upon the collection, which was published in the twenty-fourth volume of the ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ Blyth did not venture to bestow a new name on this Gazelle, although he gave an accurate description of it, and added a note (obtained from Burton) calling special attention to “the elevation of loose replicated skin upon the nose,” so that there can be no doubt as to which of the two allied species Speke’s specimens (which are still in the Calcutta Museum[11]) belong.

In the reprint of Blyth’s ‘Report,’ which was edited by Speke in 1860 after his return to this country, this Gazelle was erroneously referred to G. cuvieri of Ogilby. In 1883, however, Blyth, who had discovered that this was a mistake, proposed the name Gazella spekei for this species in his ‘Catalogue of the Mammals of the Asiatic Society’s Museum,’ and this appellation has been generally adopted for it ever since.

When the late Sir Victor Brooke wrote his Monograph of the Gazelles in 1873 Speke’s Gazelle was hardly known in this country, and Brooke was only acquainted with it from photographs of the type specimens in the Calcutta Museum. But since that date Somaliland has been fully opened to British travellers, and the numerous explorers and sportsmen who have visited that much-hunted country have brought back good sets of specimens both of Speke’s and of Pelzeln’s Gazelle, and made us well acquainted with the ranges and other peculiarities of these two species.

One of the first British travellers who visited Somaliland, and made the acquaintance of Speke’s Gazelle, was the late Mr. F. L. James, who proceeded there on a shooting-expedition in January 1884, accompanied by his brother and Mr. E. Lort Phillips[12]. Mr. Lort Phillips read some notes on the Antelopes obtained on this occasion before the Zoological Society in December 1885, and in alluding to this Gazelle called it the “Flabby-nosed Gazelle,” to which term Sclater attached a footnote stating that it was “probably of a new species,” but required further examination. This examination Sclater bestowed upon Mr. Lort Phillips’s specimens shortly afterwards (see P. Z. S. 1886, p. 504), and came to the correct conclusion that the so-called Flabby-nosed Gazelle was quite distinct from the species of the coast land. He unfortunately did not perceive that it was the species of the high plateau and not that of the coast land, which had already been named Gazella spekei by Blyth, and therefore gave it a new name, Gazella naso, under which appellation it will be found described and its characteristic head figured in Sclater’s article in the Zoological Society’s ‘Proceedings’ for 1886. But, as Thomas has subsequently shown (P. Z. S. 1891, p. 210), there can be no doubt that Gazella naso is merely a synonym of Gazella spekei.

Another well-known author, who must not fail to be quoted in any reference to the game animals of Somaliland, is Capt. H. G. C. Swayne, R.E. Capt. Swayne has made no less than seventeen trips to that attractive country, and is probably better acquainted with its larger mammals than any other living individual. In his excellent narrative of his adventures[13], Capt. Swayne has given us some capital notes on Speke’s Gazelle and its near ally Pelzeln’s Gazelle, both of which are known to the natives by the same name “Dhero.”

Fig. 62.

Head of adult male Speke’s Gazelle.

(Brit. Mus.)

Capt. Swayne calls the former Antelope the “Ogo, or Plateau Gazelle,” and the latter the “Guban, or Lowland Gazelle,” and describes the peculiarities of the present species as follows:—

“The Plateau Gazelle, which has the ridges of loose skin over the nose well developed, inhabits the elevated country, commencing about thirty-five miles inland. It is found south of Gólis, in Ogo and in the Haud, as well as in Ogo-Gudan, the country near Hargeisa where Guban rises gradually into Ogo.

“I have shot large numbers of Gazelles for food at various times, and have always noticed that the plateau variety has a much thicker and longer coat than the other. This is possibly the result of natural selection, as the high plains of the Ogo and the Haud, where it lives, are subject to sweeping cold winds, and the nights are very cold indeed. The altitude of these plains inhabited by the Plateau Gazelle is from three thousand to over six thousand feet, but doubtless they go much lower towards Ogádén. The great steppe of Gólis, with its prolongations east and west, which rises some forty miles inland, and separates Guban, the low coast country, from Ogo, the high interior country, forms the natural line of demarcation between these two Gazelles.”

Fig. 63.

Head of adult female Speke’s Gazelle.

(Mr. F. Gillett, F.Z.S.)

A still more recent explorer of Somaliland, Mr. A. E. Pease, M.P., F.Z.S., has most kindly favoured us with some excellent notes on Speke’s Gazelle and its sister species, which we cannot do better than reproduce. Mr. Pease has also sent us along with his MS. remarks a sketch-map of the northern part of Somaliland, in which the ranges of these two species are accurately shown.

He writes as follows:—

“Speke’s Gazelle is called ‘Dhero’ by the Somalis, who do not distinguish it by name from Gazella pelzelni. It is a ‘Dhero,’ just as the other, and yet there is no Somali shikari or any other observer who cannot discriminate at a glance between these two very distinct species—distinct in colour, size, horns, and habitat, whilst the peculiar nose, covered with soft pliable folds of loose skin, of the G. spekei is alone sufficient to mark it as a species apart.

“The Speke’s or Plateau Gazelle has been termed the Mountain Gazelle by some writers; but it is not strictly a mountain Gazelle, but one that frequents the higher plains and low foot-hills north and south of the Golis. But with its distribution I will deal later.

“In colour the Speke’s Gazelles are much darker than Pelzeln’s Gazelles, the predominating colour in life being a rich strong burnt-sienna buff, distinctly darker over the back. The side-stripes are very dark brown, strongly marked, and maintaining their depth of colour to the edge of the white under the ribs and belly. The tail is a dark reddish brown, and the colour on the quarters towards the tail is of a deeper shade. The coat, though fine in texture, is very long for a Gazelle, being sometimes fully two inches long on the withers, and the stern is heavily feathered with long white hair. Altogether it is one of the most beautifully coloured of all the Gazelles. The head is also strongly marked, the deep dark brown patch on the nose and the tear-mark sprinkled with dark hairs are very distinctive. The enlargement of the nose is covered with three or four folds of loose pliable skin. The horns are more curved back and forward towards the tips than those of Pelzeln’s Gazelle, and on the average do not reach to quite the same length as in that species. Twelve inches along the curve would be an abnormally long horn for G. spekei, whilst this measurement is not uncommon in Pelzeln’s Gazelle. The female is very slightly lighter in colour, and has weak horns, reaching to about 9 inches in old ones, with slight indications of the annulations, which are deep and strong in the male.

“This Gazelle I have observed in large numbers on both sides of the Golis range. I have seen it in bands numbering from fifteen to twenty on the plateaux behind (S. of) Gan Libah and Dunanoof. In the Gadabursi country, on the northern limits of the Haud, west of Lija Uri, I have seen them frequently in small bands of from five to eight, and herds of this size may be said to be the rule in the zone north of the Golis Range and south of the Maritime Plain. I cannot call to mind having seen them much further south than the grass plains of Toyo, but there I have observed them mixed up with the Aoul or Soemmerring’s Gazelle.

“I should put down the height of this Gazelle at about 24 inches, and its weight, when living, at about 40 pounds.”

So far as we know, but one specimen of Speke’s Gazelle has as yet reached this country alive. This was a young male, presented to the Zoological Society’s Menagerie in November last year by Dr. L. de Gébert, who had obtained it at Djibutil, the French port of Abyssinia. Unfortunately it did not live long in captivity, but after its death Sclater, with Mr. F. E. Beddard’s kind assistance, was able to examine the specimen more closely. It exhibited a slight protuberance on the nose, as shown in the figure (fig. 64), which by the kindness of the Zoological Society we are enabled to reproduce on the present occasion. Underneath the skin of the nose was a slight cavity, which was easily inflated into a protuberance by blowing air into the nostrils. But dissection, which was carried out by Mr. Beddard, revealed no trace of any glandular structure.

Fig. 64.

Head of young male Speke’s Gazelle.

(P. Z. S. 1897, p. 920.)

The collection of the British Museum contains a good mounted example of this Gazelle (procured from Herr Menges, and originally obtained from Gerbatir in Somaliland), from which the coloured figure (Plate LXI.) has been prepared by Mr. Smit. There is likewise in the Museum a good series of skins and skulls from different places in Somaliland collected and presented by Mr. T. W. H. Clarke, Capt. H. G. C. Swayne, R.E., Col. Arthur Paget, and Mr. Ford G. Barclay. From one of these our figure (p. 128) of a good adult head of this Gazelle has been prepared by Mr. Smit; while that of the female (p. 129) has been drawn from a mounted head kindly lent to us for that purpose by Mr. Frederick Gillett, F.Z.S.

May, 1898.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. LXII.

J. Smit lith.

Hanhart imp.

Pelzeln’s Gazelle.

GAZELLA PELZELNI.

Published by R. H. Porter.

92. PELZELN’S GAZELLE.
GAZELLA PELZELNI, Kohl.
[PLATE LXII.]

Gazella spekei, Scl. P. Z. S. 1884, p. 540; Lort Phillips, P. Z. S. 1885, p. 931 (nec Blyth).

Gazella pelzelni, Kohl, SB. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, 1886, p. 4; id. Ann. Mus. Wien, i. p. 76, pls. iii. & iv. fig. 1 (animal & skull) (1886); Thos. P. Z. S. 1891, p. 211; Scl. P. Z. S. 1892, pp. 100 & 118; Swayne, P. Z. S. 1892, p. 306; Ward, Horn Meas. (1) p. 113 (1892), (2) p. 155 (1896); Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 238 (1893); Swayne, Somaliland, p. 316 (fig., head) (1895); Hoyos, Aulihan, p. 178, pl. x. fig. 1 (1895); Elliot, Publ. Chicago Mus. Zool. i. p. 119 (1897).

Vernacular Name:—Dhero of Somalis (in common with the last species) (Swayne).

Size rather greater than in G. spekei; height at withers about 25 inches. Colour brownish fawn, rather more rufous than G. spekei. Light lateral band distinct; dark band rufous brown, similar to that of the back but rather darker in tone, not blackish. Pygal band distinct, brown. Centre of face dark fawn, without either the black spot or the pale swollen cushion characteristic of G. spekei. Dark and light cheek-bands short and indistinct. Knee-tufts dark brown.

Skull narrower than in G. spekei, and with long narrow nasals, which articulate broadly with the premaxillæ. Basal length in an old male 6·87 inches, greatest breadth 3·25, muzzle to orbit 3·75.

Horns more evenly divergent, much straighter and less curved backwards than in G. spekei, but otherwise similar. In length they attain to about 11 or 12 inches.

Female. Like the male, but the horns much smoother and slenderer, and only about three-fourths the length.

Hab. Maritime plains of Northern Somaliland.

As we have already mentioned in our account of the last species, the late Mr. F. L. James and his party, who visited Somaliland in 1884, appear to have been the first to bring to England examples of the two allied Gazelles of Somaliland. Unfortunately, however, though perhaps not unnaturally, Sclater, who assisted Mr. E. Lort Phillips in the determination of the Mammals obtained during that expedition, referred the coast-land specimens to Gazella spekei, and described the examples from the high plateau as belonging to a new species, Gazella naso. About two years later, however, this error was corrected by Herr H. F. Kohl, of the Natural History Museum of Vienna, who, in an article upon new and rare Antelopes collected by Herr L. Menges in Somaliland, among which examples of both these Gazelles were comprised, rightly referred the upland species to Gazella spekei of Blyth and gave to the lowland species, then still unnamed, the title of Gazella pelzelni, after the late August von Pelzeln, a well-known naturalist, who was at that time Custos of the Imperial Museum of Natural History.

Thomas, in his article on the Antelopes collected in Somaliland by Mr. T. W. H. Clarke, published in the Zoological Society’s ‘Proceedings’ for 1891, was the first to make this matter perfectly clear, and to establish the name Gazella pelzelni as the permanent designation of the coast-land Gazelle of Somaliland. Since that date the distinctions between the two allied species have become well recognized and understood, and numerous examples of both species have been obtained by the naturalists and sportsmen who have recently visited that country.

Capt. Swayne, in his well-known work on Somaliland and its wild animals (from which, by the kind permission of Messrs. Rowland Ward & Co., the publishers, we have been allowed to borrow illustrations of the heads of both sexes of this Gazelle), tells us that the “short-coated, light-coloured Lowland Gazelle” carries rather longer horns than those of the Plateau Gazelle (Gazella spekei), which are “shorter, thicker, more curved, and better annulated.” “The habits of both,” he continues, “are nearly alike; they go in moderate-sized herds of from three to ten, and resort mostly to stony or sandy undulating ground or ravines thinly dotted over with mimosas. Both species are fond of salt and do not require water. It is hard to understand what they can pick up to eat in the wretched ground which they frequent. They have a curiosity which amounts almost to impudence, but are wonderfully on the alert, and hard to shoot, seeming to know perfectly well the range of a rifle, and presenting but a very small target.”

Capt. R. Light, writing to Sclater in 1892, tells us that when he visited Somaliland in 1891 he found this Gazelle between Berbera and Zeila, close down by the sea: “they were often observed feeding side by side with camels and flocks of sheep and goats. When startled they move off the ground in a quick trot, taking bounds over any obstacles and finally breaking into a gallop.”

Fig. 65.

Head of Pelzeln’s Gazelle, ♂.

(From Swayne’s ‘Somaliland,’ p. 317.)

Fig. 65a.

Skull of Pelzeln’s Gazelle, ♀.

(From Swayne’s ‘Somaliland,’ p. 317.)

Mr. Pease, who has kindly supplied us with notes on this Gazelle as well as on the preceding species, writes that Pelzeln’s Gazelle is essentially the species of the maritime plain and could be seen within shot of the town of Bulhar when he was there in 1896, and within a mile or so of Berbera. “In life it appears of a light rich yellow-buff in colour, with the usual Gazelline marks rather faintly indicated. Its coat is short and fine, and its horns are straighter and longer than those of G. spekei. The horns of the female are weak and almost smooth, like those of Speke’s Gazelle.” “Within fifty miles of the sea-shore,” he continues, “this Gazelle is exceedingly numerous in suitable places. Half-a-dozen herds may be often seen at a time, but I have seldom observed more than twenty in a single band. In size G. pelzelni is larger than G. spekei, the average height being about 25 inches, while the weight of the carcase is usually a little over 40 lbs.”

Mr. D. G. Elliot, who made a successful expedition to Somaliland in 1896, for the purpose of obtaining specimens for the Field Columbian Museum of Chicago, gives us the following account of his experiences with the present species:—

“This is the Gazelle of the lowlands and is not often seen much beyond Laferug on the road to Hargeisa, where the following species begins to make its appearance. It is the larger animal of the two, and they resemble each other very much in their habits.

“Pelzeln’s Gazelle frequents dry and stony places, covered with low bushes, and it is difficult to see where or how it can obtain sufficient nourishment from the barren, forbidding districts it inhabits. It goes in small troops of from two or three to nearly a dozen individuals. I think eleven was the greatest number I ever saw together at one time. As a rule, it is not a wild creature and readily permits an approach sufficiently near to ensure a fatal shot, but of course when much hunted becomes wary. The males were often seen by themselves, and then it was not difficult to stalk them. Their horns are almost straight and annulated nearly to the tips. The female also carries horns, much straighter and much more slender than those of the male. There is considerable variation in the coloring of individuals and I hardly know what causes it. The typical style has a broad conspicuous chestnut band running lengthwise along the body just above the white of the belly. But some individuals, evidently of equal age, killed practically at the same time and in the same condition of coat, were entirely without the distinguishing mark. It may be possibly an exhibition of individual variation, for these specimens were not confined to any especial locality. I do not think, however, it was in any way an indication of age, for fully adult animals were without the stripe, neither was this peculiarity confined to either sex.”

The British Museum contains a good male specimen of Pelzeln’s Gazelle, mounted from a skin obtained by Herr Menges near Berbera in Somaliland. Mr. Smit’s figures of this species (Plate LXII.), which represent the male in two positions, have been prepared from it. The Museum also contains two skins from the plains of Berbera, collected by Capt. Swayne and originally sent home to Sclater.

May, 1898.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. LXIII.

J. Smit lith.

Hanhart imp.

Loder’s Gazelle.

GAZELLA LEPTOCEROS.

Published by R. H. Porter.

93. LODER’S GAZELLE.
GAZELLA LEPTOCEROS (F. Cuv.).
[PLATE LXIII.]

Antilope leptoceros, Geoffr. St.-Hil. et F. Cuv. H. N. Mamm. (fol.) pls. 473, 474, livr. 72 (1842) (Sennaar?); Wagn. Schr. Säug. Suppl. iv. p. 422 (1844), v. p. 407 (1855); Schinz, Syn. Mamm. ii. p. 445 (1845); id. Mon. Antil. p. 34, pl. 38 (1848); Sund. Pecora, K. Vet.-Ak. Handl. 1845, p. 269 (1847); id. Hornschuch’s Transl., Arch. Skand. Beitr. ii. p. 265; Reprint, p. 85 (1848); Gieb. Säug. p. 309 (1853); Heugl. Reise N.O.-Afr. ii. p. 100, cum tab. (1877).

Gazella leptoceros, Temm. Esq. Zool. Guin. p. 193 (1853); Brooke, P. Z. S. 1873, p. 543; Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 234 (1893).

Gazella dorcas, var. 4, Gray, Cat. Ung. B. M. p. 57 (1852).

Leptoceros abuharab et L. cuvieri, Fitz. SB. Wien, lix. pt. 1, p. 160 (1869).

Gazella loderi, Thos. Ann. Mag. N. H. (6) xiii. p. 452 (1894) (Algeria); id. P. Z. S. 1894, p. 470, pl. xxxii. (animal); Loder, P. Z. S. 1894, p. 473 (habits); Scl. P. Z. S. 1895, p. 522 (Egypt); Bramley, P. Z. S. 1895, p. 863 (Egypt); Scl. P. Z. S. 1896, p. 780 (Viv. Soc. Zool.); Pease, P. Z. S. 1896, p. 813 (Algeria); Whitaker, P. Z. S. 1896, p. 816 (Tunis); Ward, Horn Meas. (2) p. 169 (1896).

Vernacular Names:—Abu el harabat or Abu el haráb in Arabic (Heuglin); Reem of Arabs in Algeria (Loder); Ghazal abiad (White Gazelle) of Arabs in Tunis and Egypt (Whitaker & Bramley).

Height of male at withers about 25 inches. General colour very pale sandy fawn, the Gazelline markings little defined. Central facial band and darker cheek-bands sandy, not rufous, and but little contrasting with the light facial streaks. Light lateral bands scarcely perceptible, and the darker ones below them only pale sandy with a tinge of brownish, as are the pygal bands, neither being much darker than the general dorsal colour. Ears long, narrow, pointed, pale whitish buff externally. Tail sandy at base, darkening terminally to brownish black. Front of fore limbs sandy, of hind limbs whitish; knee-brushes distinct, but little darker than the general colour. Hoofs variable in shape, those of specimens from the sandy regions of the Sahara much elongated, while in other regions they are of the usual shape.

Skull of normal proportions; premaxillæ broadly articulating with nasals. Basal length in an old male 6·45 inches, greatest breadth 3·3, muzzle to orbit 3·6.

Horns of male long, about twice the length of the skull, slender, closely and heavily ringed nearly to the tip. They are very variable as to their exact curvature, but are ordinarily rather straighter than in other species, curving but slightly backwards; they are near together basally, diverging above, sometimes very widely, so as to make them resemble divergent horns of G. granti in miniature.

Female. Similar to the male, but the horns, although nearly equally long, are much slenderer and even less curved than in the male.

Hab. Sandy tracts of the interior of Algeria, Tunisia, and Western Egypt, south to Nubia and Sennaar.

The great folio work of Geoffrey St.-Hilaire and Frédéric Cuvier entitled ‘Histoire Naturelle des Mammifères,’ which was issued in livraisons from 1824 to 1842, contains a long series of coloured figures of mammals, mostly taken from examples living in the well-known Menagerie attached to the Jardin des Plantes. Amongst these in the seventy-second livraison, published in 1842, were the first descriptions and figures given of both sexes of the present Gazelle, from examples stated to have been brought from Sennaar by Burton. They had lived in the Menagerie, we are told, two years, and had bred a young one, which resembled its parents in most particulars. The appropriate scientific name “leptoceros,” from the long thin horns, had been given to this species, we are informed, by Georges Cuvier, and was adopted by the authors of the work referred to, who, however, called it at the head of their article, after their usual fashion, only by the French name “Antilope à longues cornes.”

Very little more information was acquired concerning this Gazelle for many years. Most of the systematists were entirely unacquainted with it, and could only quote the original descriptions. Sundevall and Gray considered it to be merely a variety of Gazella dorcas. Rüppell, during his extensive travels in East Africa, seems never to have come across it, and does not mention it in any of his publications.

The first author after its describers to recognize its existence was Heuglin, who in 1877, in the second volume of his ‘Reise in Nordost-Afrika,’ writes of this species, the name of which he had previously misapplied to another Gazelle, and gives a coloured figure of its head and figures of two pairs of its horns. Heuglin met with G. leptoceros in the Libyan desert of Egypt, near the Natron Lakes and the Fayoum, where he states its Arabic name is “Abu el haráb.”

Sir Victor Brooke had never seen specimens of this Gazelle, and in his ‘Monograph’ relies mainly upon Heuglin’s description.

So matters remained until recent years, when examples of this Gazelle, or of a very closely allied form, turned up unexpectedly from a new quarter.

Loche, Lataste, and other authorities on the zoology of Algeria had mentioned the existence far in the interior of that country of an Antelope called “El Rim,” and examples of the horns of a problematical Gazelle called “El Reem” had been brought to England from the shops at Biskra. In 1894 an enthusiastic sportsman and naturalist, Sir Edmund Loder, F.Z.S., resolved to make a serious attempt to discover this mysterious animal, and proceeded to Algeria for that purpose. We cannot do better than transcribe for our readers Sir Edmund’s own account of the results of this successful expedition, which was read before the Zoological Society of London on June 5th, 1894:—

“Seventeen years ago (in 1877) I bought in the bazaar at Biskra several pairs of Gazelle horns. They obviously belonged to three species: Gazella dorcas, called by the Arabs ‘Rezal’; Gazella cuvieri, which they call ‘Admi’; and a third called ‘Reem,’ which I was not able to identify with any described species. All these horns were on frontal bones only. It is very rarely that the Arabs bring in any whole skulls or skins for sale, and I have never seen anything but frontlets of the ‘Reem.’

“In 1891 and again in 1893 I went out to Algeria for the purpose of hunting Mouflon (Ovis tragelaphus).

“In 1877 I had been prevented from going after them except for a few hours at a time. On these later trips I was more successful and secured some fine male Mouflon, a female of the large Mountain Gazelle (Gazella cuvieri), and a few specimens of Gazella dorcas.

“At Biskra I again found horns of the Reem, but got no information about it except that it was reported to live in the sand. I heard a French name for it for the first time, ‘Gazelle des sables.’

“As my friend Mr. Alfred Pease was spending a second winter at Biskra and had made the acquaintance of several native hunters, I requested him to try what he could do to find out the habitat of the Reem. About Christmas-time last year he wrote to me that he believed he had reliable information that the Reem was to be found in the desert near Chegga, only about 50 kilometres south of Biskra on the caravan-route to Touggourt.

“We made arrangements for a camping trip, and I left England on February 1st, and started from Biskra with Mr. and Mrs. Alfred Pease on February 8th of this year.

“After two days’ marching we got to Chegga and made inquiries respecting the Reem. No one seemed to know anything about the animal except one Arab, who said that if we went on farther south we should come to a place called Ain Gebberah, where there were a few Reem, but if we went on still farther to Hamraia we should find the Reem in quantities.

“We therefore travelled on for two or three more days until we came to Hamraia, but on making inquiries about the Reem the answers were very unsatisfactory. We determined, however, before giving up the search, to stay here a day to hunt and see what game there was in this part of the desert.

“In the early morning of the next day Pease started off from camp with an Arab in one direction, while I went off in the other. By the evening we had covered a considerable extent of country and had used our glasses from every available rise in the ground. We saw several small herds of Gazella dorcas, but no tracks even of any other Gazelle. We did not seem to be any nearer to obtaining a Reem than when we started from Biskra.

“At night, when we got back to camp, we were told that a negro camel-herd had been there during the day, and had said that we were not at all in the right country for Reem, that he was well acquainted with the animal and knew where it was to be found. He came into camp again the next morning and told us that the Reem had long slender hoofs and tender feet, lived only in the soft sand, and would be unable to run on hard stony desert such as that round Hamraia. He said he could take us to the Reem country, in rolling sand-hills, but we should not be able to camp very near as there was no water for our horses and pack-animals.

“We agreed to go with him, and he led us a day’s march still farther south towards the Oued Souf, and then turned off the caravan-track to the east and chose a camp in the sand about an hour and a half from water. (Almost all the water in the desert is brackish and bad, but the water here was positively nasty.)

“The next morning we left camp very early on horseback, with the negro on foot and an Arab hunter riding a mule. The negro led the way at a tremendous pace, keeping up a good trot in the soft sand and sometimes running fast for a couple of miles without a stop across the dry arm of a chott, keeping us at a hand-gallop most of the time.

“After two hours and a half the negro pointed out the first track of the Reem, which is quite easily to be distinguished from that of Gazella dorcas from its much greater length. We now unsaddled the horses, tied them up, and went off in two parties to hunt for Reem. The negro led the way in front of me, going slowly and with great caution, as the Reem is extremely wary and against the nearly white sand can detect a moving object a long way off. We had not walked very far when we saw the head of a Reem looking over the top of a sand-ridge at about 300 yards distance. We stayed for a long time perfectly still behind a tuft of tall alpha grass, till at last the head disappeared. As soon as it was out of sight we ran as hard as we could across the bare sand to the top of the next ridge, and again sheltered ourselves behind a tuft of alpha. When we looked out cautiously we saw that the Reem had moved on to another sand-hill more to our left, and was again showing just the top of his head over it. We had, however, considerably reduced the distance. Again he stopped perfectly still for a long time and then turned and moved off. We ran to another ridge, and I caught sight of him trotting to the top of the sand-hill beyond at about 150 yards. At the top he turned and I fired at once and got him. A lucky shot! as the distance was long for so small an animal. It was a good male, with horns 13 inches long. I have not seen any much longer than these.

“After taking the Reem back to the place where we had left the horses, we started off again, and during the day saw several small lots containing both males and females (4, 5, and 2), but did not get a chance of another shot. Pease also saw a few.

“We hunted the sand-hills for two more days; on the third day our negro guide took us much farther from camp, running before us with surprising speed and endurance for three and a half hours before we halted and tied up our horses. In the evening, after walking all day in a hot sun and on soft sand, he showed himself still untired and ready to run at the same pace back again to camp. This remarkable man said that he had lived for seven years in the desert without sleeping in a house or tent, and had hardly tasted water, meat, or bread; during the whole of that time his food consisted of dates and camel’s milk, and he attributed his strength to this diet. The long distance of our camp from the sand-hills where the Reem is found was a great hindrance, as we could not hunt for them at the time they were feeding. By the time we got to the ground they were already lying down for the day, generally on the top of the sand-ridges, and keeping a watchful look-out. We saw several small herds each day, but neither of us ever got another chance of a shot.

“We were lucky in having calm weather, as a sand-storm in that country is a very serious matter. The air gets as thick as during a bad London fog and one cannot see even a few yards ahead, making it quite impossible to regain camp, all tracks being blotted out in a few minutes by the wind. Our experience of sand-storms was limited to one day, our last day in the desert, luckily for us well outside the region of the sand-hills, when leaving our caravan behind we rode in 50 kilometres to Biskra in the teeth of a cutting wind filled with dust and sand, an extremely painful experience; but we were in no danger of losing our way as we were then on the broad track worn by the caravans travelling between Biskra and Touggourt.

“The Reem is remarkable for its light and uniform coloration, the ordinary Gazellemarkings being hardly noticeable. The long slender hoofs are also very peculiar, reminding one of those of Tragelaphus spekii, which lives in the swamps on the borders of lakes and rivers.

“It is quite certain that the Reem can never drink, as there is no water in this country at all, except in the comparatively deep wells dug by the natives.

“The following measurements of the male Reem were taken directly after it was killed:—Height at shoulder 2 ft. 4 in.; girth at brisket 2 ft. 1 in.; length of horns 13 in. It weighed, after being brought into camp (without entrails), 34 lb. These are about the measurements and weight of Gazella dorcas.

“For comparison I give the measurements of a good male Gazella cuvieri which I killed in the mountains a few weeks after the Reem:—Height at shoulder 2 ft. 7 in.; girth at withers 2 ft. 8½ in.; weight without entrails 58 lb.

“As to the distribution of these species, I may say that Gazella cuvieri is found entirely in the mountains, never down in the true desert. It climbs like a Chamois to the tops of the highest mountains in the rockiest ground, and is often found in the juniper-forests on the mountain-slopes. These are also the haunts of the Mouflon, the two animals being constantly seen on the same ground.

“Gazella dorcas is found all over the hard stony desert and also on the foot-hills, so that it sometimes overlaps the range of the Admi. I have seen a few in the sand-hills, the true country of the Reem; but I believe that still farther south it is not found, its place being taken entirely by the Reem. I quite believe the statement of the natives that the Reem is never found off the soft sand.”

On his return home Sir Edmund Loder submitted his series of specimens of the Gazelles obtained during this and his former journeys in Algeria to Thomas, who, at the same meeting of the Zoological Society at which Sir Edmund’s notes were read, proposed to refer his examples of the “Reem” to a new species to be called Gazella loderi, after the energetic traveller who first made known its existence in Algeria.

Mr. Pease, in his notes on the Antelopes of Eastern Algeria published in the Zoological Society’s ‘Proceedings’ for 1896, gives us the following additional information:—

“The Rhime (Gazella loderi), Arab ‘El Rhime,’ Tamahaq ‘Hankut,’ is the common Gazelle of the Sahara. Enormous numbers are killed by the Arabs in the neighbourhood of Rhadamis and their skins dressed and dyed with a dye made from the rind of pomegranates and exported from Rhadamis. They are to be found throughout the region of the great Ergs and everywhere in the Sahara sands where there is vegetation sufficient to support them. The only places where they are to be met with, north of El Oued Souf, are to the south-west of Bou Chaama and near Sef el Menadi. A number of their horns are always on sale at Biskra and sometimes the skins. The male horns of the Rhime sometimes bear so close a resemblance to those of the Admi (Gazella cuvieri) that they are often sold and bought as such.”

Mr. Pease also points out that in the “Rhime” the horns in their main outline form a long evenly tapering V, whilst in the Admi the horns are more inclined to be parallel, and towards the points usually take an inward and forward turn, as shown in the diagrams (Fig. 66, a, b) which by the kindness of the Zoological Society we are able to reproduce. The annulations, also, Mr. Pease states, are deeper and more marked in the Admi, and stop more abruptly towards the points than in the “Rhime.”

Fig. 66.

Diagram of horns of Rhime (a) and Admi (b).

(P. Z. S. 1896, p. 814.)

This Gazelle occurs also in Southern Tunis, as we learn from Mr. J. S. Whitaker, F.Z.S., who has written the following notes on it in the Zoological Society’s ‘Proceedings’:—

“This pale desert Gazelle is known to the Tunisian Arabs by the name of ‘Ghazel abied’ or ‘Resêl abied,’ meaning the White Gazelle, its Algerian name ‘Reem’ or ‘Rim’ being apparently unknown in Tunis.

“It seems to be a true desert species, never occurring out of the sand-dune country, where it replaces G. dorcas; and while the home of the latter species is the semi-desert country, with its vast stony plains, covered with scanty scrub vegetation, the habitat of G. loderi is undoubtedly the more arid region of sand wastes further south.

“Herr Spatz, who has resided for several years in the south of Tunis, and is well acquainted with this Gazelle, informs me that it is common in the inland country of the extreme south of the Regency, being first met with at about 25 to 30 miles south of the Chott Djerid. In the districts where it occurs it is plentiful, and is generally to be found in small herds; but owing to its very pale colour, which harmonizes so well with that of the desert surroundings, it is not easily distinguished at a distance, and being, moreover, extremely shy and wary, a near approach is not often possible. The nomad Arabs, however, who are nearly all sportsmen, kill a good many, and every year some 500 to 600 pairs of horns of this species are brought by the caravans coming from the interior to Gabes, where they find a ready sale among the French soldiery.

“Herr Spatz confirms what Sir Edmund Loder says of this species never drinking, and, as to its food, says it subsists on the leaves and berries of the few desert plants to be found in the sand wastes. The female of G. loderi, according to Spatz, often has two young ones at a birth, differing in this respect from G. dorcas, which seems to have but one.

“So good a description of G. loderi has been given by Mr. Thomas (P. Z. S. 1894, p. 470), that I can add nothing thereto, except it be merely to say that the coat of this Gazelle is extremely fine and short-haired, and that in the specimens which I have the knee-brushes are so slightly developed as to be scarcely noticeable or worthy of the name.”

In the spring of 1895 Sclater was in Egypt, and convinced himself that besides G. dorcas, of which there were many specimens in the Zoological Gardens at Gizeh, there were examples of both sexes of another species belonging to the group of G. leptoceros and G. cuvieri, stated to have been obtained from the Arabs of the Western Desert (cf. P. Z. S. 1895, p. 400). On receipt in London of a skin and skull of this Gazelle subsequently sent to him by Mr. Jennings-Bramley, Sclater, after comparing it with typical specimens of Gazella loderi in the British Museum, pronounced them to be of the same species. Mr. Jennings-Bramley also supplied Sclater with some excellent notes on the mode of capture of this Gazelle by the Arabs of the Western Desert of Egypt, from which we extract the following passages:—

“On the 27th of June, 1895, I started from the Pyramids in order, if possible, to catch some living specimens of Loder’s Gazelle (Gazella loderi), known to the Arabs as ‘Rasal Abiad’ (the White Gazelle), which the shikaries whom I took with me reported to be found in the desert at some thirty or forty miles distant from Cairo.

“Leaving at 4 P.M. on the 27th, we started, taking a south-easterly direction. We travelled till 12 that night, and at 4 next morning resumed our march. Soon after the sun had risen, one of the shikaries, pointing to the ground, showed what he made out to be the spoor, evidently but lately made, of a fine male Loder’s Gazelle. This, being larger than that of the Dorcas Gazelle, is very easily recognizable; the bluntness of the hoofs in the case of Loder’s Gazelle shows a marked difference. About 12 o’clock one of the camel-men called out that a Gazelle could be seen ahead, but the many heaps of white stones, scattered all over the desert, are so deceiving at a little distance that both shikaries shook their heads.

“The camel-man, however, in this case proved to be correct, as we soon noticed the Gazelle walking leisurely away. It disappeared behind a mound of sand, where it must have remained, for, on reaching the place about half an hour later, we were surprised to come suddenly on the Gazelle, now only some 200 yards off. It was a fine female, very white in colour. Not wishing to disturb any others that might be near, I did not fire. We found, however, that it was alone. At 12 o’clock or thereabouts we came upon the skirt of the plateau, from which the Fayoum can be seen, and here the shikaries decided to turn back, as they said we had passed the ‘White Gazelle ground’; so, after returning about two miles, we set up the tents and waited for the evening, the sun being so hot that it was impossible to continue our search.

“During the afternoon the two shikaries constructed traps, which we set in the evening.

“The Gazelle trap, except the small hemp-platted rope, is made entirely from the date-palm. Taking the long leaves, the shikarie first constructs by platting them together a deep ring, about 3 inches in diameter and about 4 inches deep: it should, in fact, fit well into a golf-hole and make its walls secure. He now takes an old stalk from which the dates have been picked, and separating about twenty of the fibres which compose it, and run its whole length, he twists them into a rude bracelet about three inches in diameter. Then taking three more fibres, in place of twine, he binds the ring securely; the ring or bracelet has then a form much resembling a diminutive ‘Ringold’ ring. The shikarie now breaks off the points of the date-thorns until he has about twenty-five of them 2 inches in length; these he pushes through the fibrous sides of the ring until all the points meet in the centre, so that when finished this ring has much the appearance of a small sieve. All the thorn-points overlap slightly in the centre of the ring. This ring, holding all the thorns, the deep ring of platted leaves, and a soft thick hemp rope, made by the Arab himself, by the ordinary three-plat from raw hemp (this rope, being soft, not only binds itself more securely to the Gazelle, but does not cut the skin when drawn tight), attached to a date-stick about a yard in length, are all the implements that an Arab requires to catch a Gazelle.

“Starting in the evening for the lower ground, which is studded with small bushes (for when pitching the tents we purposely kept at a good distance from the feeding-ground), we soon found spoor, but none very promising; a buck and two does had been there two nights before. A small desert plant, much resembling our English Red Cranesbill (Geranium sanguineum), was pointed out to me by the Arabs as a favourite food of the Gazelles. Finding a spot where the spoor led to one of these plants, and the plant evidently having been nibbled at, we decided to put a trap near it. The Arab sat down and made a hole, using his deep ring to keep its sandy walls intact, so that he now had a hole resembling exactly in size and depth a golf-hole with basket-work sides, within four or five inches of the plant.

“Taking now the thorny ring he places it on the hole, which it should exactly cap. He now powders up some camel-dung and drops it carefully over the thorns in the ring, which being close together hold it up, so that soon nothing can be seen of the thorns. The use of the dried dung is, to hold up the sand which hides the trap. The hemp rope, now made into a slip-noose, is put round the top ring, and the stick to which it is attached buried in the sand. The whole is now carefully covered with sand. One of the shikaries laid his traps so successfully that it was almost impossible to find one again unless a Gazelle was caught in it. The marks like those of a Gazelle made by the fingers over the trap add to the deception. It is curious to remark that a Gazelle will rarely walk over an impression left by either beast or man in the sand.

“When the Gazelle comes in the evening to feed, its foot slips through the top ring in the centre where the thorns meet, and so to the bottom of the hole. The top ring is now fixed round the Gazelle’s leg, at the height of the depth of the hole, the spiky thorns entering the skin. This ring also holds up the hemp rope, which the Gazelle, in endeavouring to kick off the thorny ring that pricks it, draws tight, generally over the knee.

“The Gazelle starts off, dragging after it the date-stick, attached to the rope. The swinging stick makes it impossible for the animal to get away at any pace, as, twisting round one leg or the other, it throws the Gazelle to the ground continually.

“The spoor of the trapped Gazelle with the marks of the swinging stick are easily found, and the animal tracked down until in sight, when a trained greyhound will soon catch and hold it until his master comes up.

“During November and December the Gazelles are caught when fawns by trained hounds, and this is the simplest method; but it can only be practised during two months, as it takes a very good dog to catch a Gazelle when more than this age.

“During the eight days I was in the desert, though unsuccessful in trapping any, I saw several very fine specimens of Loder’s Gazelle.”

In August 1896 a fine adult living female of this Gazelle was received by the Society as a present from Mr. A. R. Birdwood, of Cairo—no doubt obtained in the same locality as that explored by Mr. Bramley. Mr. Birdwood wrote subsequently to Sclater concerning this Gazelle as follows:—

“I am pleased that you have found the Gazelle a real acquisition to your Gardens. I succeeded in securing you a very fine male the other day, but it died almost at once from the effects of the trap used by the Bedouins!

“With regard to the statement that this Gazelle does not drink water, my theory is that it may be true that water is not always obtainable where it is, and that in that case it makes shift with the succulent desert plants that are to be found even in the most arid, seemingly waterless, and barren plains! Of these desert plants, I have collected more than sixty varieties from the limestone hills of Mariout, in the arid stretches running from Wady Natron to Wady Siwa, and in the still more unfavourable ground of the dunes that intersect the road running from Fayoum to the oases of Farafseh and Dakleh. All have the same characteristic succulence, and one, known to the Bedouins as ‘broth of the Gazelle’ (which looks more like a bundle of dry thorns than anything else), is most delightfully aromatic (when snapped off) as well as succulent! These seeming deserts after a rain are plains of verdure, but in a few months return to their primitive wildness.”

So far as we know, besides the original specimens of G. leptoceros received at Paris in 1884, the female presented to the Zoological Society by Mr. Birdwood is the only example of this Gazelle that has reached the Menageries of Europe alive. By the kindness of the Zoological Society we are able to give a copy of Mr. Smit’s drawing of the head of this animal.

Fig. 67.

Front view of head of a female Loder’s Gazelle.

(P.Z.S. 1896, p. 781.)

But the identity of the Egyptian Gazella leptoceros with the Algerian G. loderi is perhaps not yet exactly certain, although we have combined the English name of the latter with the scientific name of the former.

On comparing specimens from Tunis and Algeria with others from Egypt, the size of the former is slightly greater, the markings are even less defined than in Egyptian examples, the horns are less closely ringed, the nasal bones are markedly longer, the nasal opening is both longer and broader, and the premaxillæ articulate less broadly with the sides of the nasal bones.

An old male is 26 inches in height at the withers, and the skull-measurements of the type are:—Basal length 6·75 inches, greatest breadth 3·35, muzzle to orbit 4.

These differences seem to be quite constant, so far as we have materials for comparison, and we therefore think that as the Algerian form has had a name given to it, it may be provisionally retained as a subspecies, at least until these characters are shown to be variable. The accompanying figure, for the use of which we are indebted to the kindness of the Zoological Society, gives a side view of the skull and horns of the Algerian form.

Fig. 68.

Skull of Gazella leptoceros loderi, ♂.

(P.Z.S. 1894, p. 471.)

Our representations of this Gazelle (Plate LXIII.) have been prepared by Mr. Smit—that of the male (front figure) from a mounted specimen in the British Museum obtained by Mr. J. I. S. Whitaker in the Tunisian Sahara, and presented by him in 1894; that of the female from the example from Egypt living in the Zoological Society’s Gardens.

In the British Museum are likewise the typical skin and horns of Gazella loderi obtained by Sir Edmund Loder in the desert about a hundred miles south of Biskra, some frontlets and horns from Biskra, presented by Mr. Rowland Ward, and a skin and skull of a female from Tunis, presented by Mr. J. I. S. Whitaker along with the male now mounted. The example of Gazella leptoceros typica sent to Sclater by Mr. Birdwood is also now in the National Collection. We have also to thank Dr. J. Anderson, F.Z.S., for the loan of a skin and skull of an old male of the Egyptian form of this Gazelle obtained near the Natron Lakes in Egypt.

May, 1898.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. LXIV.

Wolf del J Smit lith

Hanhart imp.

The Isabella Gazelle.

GAZELLA ISABELLA.

Published by R.H. Porter.

94. THE ISABELLA GAZELLE.
GAZELLA ISABELLA, Gray.
[PLATE LXIV.]

Antilope dorcas, Licht. Darst. Säug. pl. v. (1827)?

Gazella dorcas, Blanf. Zool. Abyss, p. 261, pl. i. fig. 1 (1870).

Gazella isabella, Gray, Ann. Mag. N. H. (1) xviii. pp. 214 & 231 (1846); id. Knowsl. Men. p. 4 (1850); id. P. Z. S. 1850, p. 113; id. Cat. Ung. B. M. p. 57 (1852); Gerr. Cat. Bones Mamm. B. M. p. 233 (1862); Fitz. & Heugl. SB. Wien, liv. pt. 1, p. 591 (1866); Fitz. SB. Wien, lix. pt. 1, p. 158 (1869); Gray, Cat. Rum. B. M. p. 38 (1872); id. Hand-l. Rum. B. M. p. 107 (1873); Brooke, P. Z. S. 1873, p. 539; Huet, Bull. Soc. Acclim. 1887, p. 65; W. Scl. Cat. Mamm. Calc. Mus. ii. p. 157 (1891); Ward, Horn Meas. (1) p. 116 (1892), (2) p. 158 (1896).

Antilope isidis, Sund. Pecora, K. Vet.-Ak. Handl. 1845, p. 267 (1847); id. Hornschuch’s Transl., Arch. Skand. Beitr. ii. p. 263; Reprint, p. 83 (1848).

Height at withers about 25 inches. General colour pale fawn, rather variable in tone, sometimes tending towards brownish. Light lateral band very indistinct; dark band generally fawn like the back, occasionally darker, almost smoky brown. Central dark facial band deep rufous, a darker nasal patch often developing in old individuals. Light facial streak well defined, white. Pygal band almost obsolete, little or not darker than the back.

Skull rather variable in the shapes of the nasal bones and premaxillæ. That of a male measures 6·55 inches in basal length, greatest breadth 3·1, muzzle to orbit 3·65.

Horns of male, as well figured by Blanford under the name of G. dorcas, evenly diverging and curving backwards for four-fifths their length, their tips strongly bent inwards and upwards nearly or quite to a right angle.

Female. Similar to the male, but the horns slender, scarcely ridged, their tips curved inwards rather than upwards; in length nearly equal to those of the male.

Hab. Coast-lands of the Red Sea from Suakin to Massoua, and over the interior to Bogos, Barca, and Taka.

It is possible that the Gazelles described and figured by Lichtenstein in the first part of his ‘Darstellung der Thiere’ as “Antilope dorcas,” which were stated to have been procured by Hemprich and Ehrenberg in Sennaar, may have belonged to the present species. Sundevall certainly considered them to be referable to a species distinct from the true Gazella dorcas, and proposed to call them “isidis,” from Lichtenstein’s vernacular name “Isis Antelope.” But this identification is by no means certain, and, at all events, the name “isabella,” under which this Gazelle was shortly diagnosed by the late Dr. Gray in 1846, will take precedence of Sundevall’s appellation. Gray’s description is very short, and does not allude to the shape of the horns, which are one of the most characteristic features of this species. His type specimen is still in the British Museum. It is an immature male, mounted, and stated to have been received from “Abyssinia,” though Gray in later papers gives “Egypt” and “Cordofan” as the localities for his G. isabella.

Heuglin, in his various memoirs on the Antelopes of N.E. Africa, did not keep G. isabella separate from G. dorcas, and united their localities. Sir Victor Brooke, in his monograph of the Gazelles, though he divides them and says that “amongst the smaller Gazelles no two species could produce two more dissimilar animals than typical specimens of G. dorcas and G. isabella,” states his conviction that “every intermediate degree between them will be found represented in intermediate localities.” It is indeed true that G. isabella is a very inconstant species and requires further careful study.

There can be no doubt that Dr. Blanford’s Gazella dorcas, in his volume on the ‘Geology and Zoology of the Abyssinian Expedition,’ is what we here call G. isabella. The figure of its horns (op. cit. plate i. fig. 1) shows the characteristic twist inwards at the upper end. Moreover, a skull of a male (from Zoulla) and a skull and skin of a female (from Amba), obtained by him during the expedition, and now in the British Museum, are evidently referable here. Mr. W. L. Sclater has also catalogued four heads in the Calcutta Museum, obtained by Mr. Blanford on the same occasion, as G. Isabella. Mr. Blanford gives us the following field-notes on the present species:—

“So far as my observation extends, neither this nor Bennett’s Gazelle are ever seen in large flocks, like the animals of the Springbok group. Usually both are seen solitary or in parties of from two to five together, inhabiting thin bushes, generally on broken ground. They feed much upon the leaves of bushes. The male has a peculiar habit when surprised of standing still and uttering a short sharp cry. Like most Antelopes, they keep much to the neighbourhood of some particular spot. After long observation, I am convinced that Bennett’s Gazelle never drinks, and all that I could ascertain of the present Gazelle leads to the same conclusion in its case.”

In our efforts to obtain further information about the Isabella Gazelle, we did not fail to apply to the officers of the Anglo-Egyptian garrison at Suakin for a set of specimens of it for the National Collection. In reply to our requests Major Sparkes, Surgeon-Capt. Fleming, and Lieut. Carleton were kind enough to send to the British Museum five examples of it; but we cannot say that the examination of these specimens has enabled us altogether to understand this very difficult species. Of the five examples from that locality, three have and two have not a black nasal patch, while the dark lateral band in some is fairly distinct and in others almost obsolete. It is thus evident that these characters, of systematic importance elsewhere, are not, in G. isabella, even of local constancy.

Among the Gazelles registered in the Zoological Society’s ‘List of Animals’ (1896) as received during the past twelve years there have been several which, doubtless, should have been referred to the present species, but have been entered under Gazella dorcas. Amongst these may be specified an example presented by Commander W. Crofton, R.N., in July 1890 (specimen e), a female presented by Col. Holled Smith, C.B., in July 1892 (specimen g), and a pair (h, i) received on deposit in May 1894.

After the arrival of these specimens from Suakin, Mr. A. Thomson, the Head-Keeper, called Sclater’s attention to their differences from the ordinary G. dorcas. They were of a more reddish colour, and had a broad and somewhat distinct side-stripe and a blackish nasal spot, in addition to other smaller differences.

Besides the specimens of this Gazelle in the British Museum which we have already referred to, there is a mounted male from the Anseba River, formerly in Sir Victor Brooke’s collection, and presented to the Museum by Sir Douglas Brooke. We believe that our coloured figure (Plate LXIV.), which was prepared by Mr. Smit under Sir Victor’s superintendence, was taken from this specimen.

May, 1898.

Fig. 69. Fig. 69a.

Heads of Isabella Gazelle, ♂ & ♀.

(From specimens in B. M.)

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. LXV

Wolf del. J. Smit lith.

Hanhart imp

The Muscat Gazelle.

GAZELLA MUSCATENSIS.

Published by R. H. Porter.

95. THE MUSCAT GAZELLE.
GAZELLA MUSCATENSIS, Brooke.
[PLATE LXV.]

Gazella muscatensis, Brooke, P. Z. S. 1874, p. 141, pl. xxii.; Scl. List An. Z. S. (8) p. 141 (1883); id. (9) p. 155 (1896); Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 179 (1893); Thos. P. Z. S. 1894, p. 451.

Size small, height at withers 21–22 inches. General colour dark rufous fawn, darker than in any other species except G. arabica, which it much resembles in colour. Light lateral band scarcely or not perceptible; dark lateral band blackish, its upper edge little defined. Central facial band dark rufous, a distinct blackish patch over the nasals; light facial streak narrow, well defined, dark band below it not defined from the general colour of the cheeks. Knee-tufts present, brownish. Limbs darker in colour than usual, being only white on the inner sides of the forearms and thighs.

Skull very similar to that of G. isabella. Premaxillæ scarcely touching nasals. Basal length in an old female 5·7 inches, greatest breadth 2·9, muzzle to orbit 3·6.

Horns of males curved like those of G. isabella, but decidedly shorter, not or little longer than the skull.

Female. Similar to the male, but the horns slender, scarcely ringed, nearly as long as those of the other sex.

Hab. Oman, Eastern Arabia.

On the 15th of August, 1873, the Zoological Society of London received as a present from Major C. B. Euan Smith (now Col. Sir Charles B. Euan Smith, K.C.B.) a male Gazelle which he had brought with him from Muscat. On September 20th of the same year a female, obviously of the same species and obtained at the same place, was received by the Society on deposit from Mrs. Harris, then of Limefield, Kirkby Lonsdale. Sir Victor Brooke having then lately published his well-known monograph of the Gazelles in the Zoological Society’s ‘Proceedings,’ and being specially interested in the group, Sclater lost no time in calling Sir Victor’s attention to these animals, with which he was much delighted. Sir Victor described them as belonging to a new species at the meeting of the Zoological Society on Feb. 27, 1874, under the name Gazella muscatensis, and pointed out the clear differences which separated them from G. arabica, which up to that time he had believed to be the only Gazelle met with in any part of Arabia.

Fig. 70. Fig. 70 a.

Heads of Muscat Gazelle, ♂ & ♀.

(From specimens in B. M.)

Instead of the massive, nearly straight, non-lyrate horns of G. arabica, Sir Victor showed that the new species had rather slender horns, compressed from side to side and distinctly lyrate, with their points turned boldly forwards and inwards. In general appearance also the Muscat Gazelles differed from G. arabica in their long and soft coats of a silvery-grey colour, instead of the short close-set pelage of a rich grizzled bay. From G. dorcas, to which they bore more resemblance, the Muscat species was recognizable by its smaller size, its different colour, and by the intensity of the facial and lateral markings.

Sir Victor’s paper on this new Gazelle was illustrated in the ‘Proceedings’ by a good coloured plate drawn by Keulemans, in which, however, the general colour is made rather too dark.

In 1874 a second male specimen of this well-marked species was presented to the Zoological Society’s Menagerie by Mr. J. H. Bainbridge, and in October 1881 a pair of the same Gazelle were presented by the late Lord Lilford. These last bred a young one, which was born in the Society’s Gardens on the 6th of March, 1882.

No more examples of the Muscat Gazelle reached the Regent’s Park after this date until 1894, when a female of this species was obtained “in exchange,” and a pair were received “on deposit” from the Hon. Walter Rothschild, F.Z.S. The male of this pair is still living in the Society’s Menagerie.

The only other specimens of the Muscat Gazelle ever received in Europe, so far as we know, are five examples in the British Museum, presented to that Institution by Dr. A. S. G. Jayakar, of whose many and valuable contributions to science we have already spoken[14]. Among the several consignments of the Mammals of Oman sent home by Dr. Jayakar, of which Thomas has given an account in the Zoological Society’s ‘Proceedings’ for 1894, were five examples of this Gazelle collected in 1892 and 1893 in several localities in Oman—Khode and Barkah-al-moze, and in Sharkeeyeh, the eastern part of that country. These specimens agree very closely with the type of the species as described by Sir Victor Brooke, which is also in the National Collection.

Our figures of both sexes of this Gazelle (Plate LXV.) have been prepared by Mr. Smit from the specimens in the British Museum.

May, 1898.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. LXVI.

Wolf del. J. Smit lith.

Hanhart imp.

Heuglin’s Gazelle.

GAZELLA TILONURA.

Published by R.H.Porter.

96. HEUGLIN’S GAZELLE.
GAZELLA TILONURA (Heugl.).
[PLATE LXVI.]

Antilope melanura, Heugl. Ant. u. Büff. N.O.-Afr. (N. Act. Leop. xxx. pt. 2) p. 6 (1863) (nec Bechstein, 1799).

Gazella melanura, Fitz, SB. Wien, lix. pt. 1, p. 159 (1869).

Antilope tilonura, Heugl. Reise Weiss. Nil, p. 315 (1869); id. Reise N.O.-Afr. ii. p. 101 (1877).

Gazella tilonura, Ward, Horn Meas. (1) p. 126 (1892), (2) p. 170 (1896); Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 233 (1893).

Gazella lævipes, Brooke, P. Z. S. 1873, p. 541 (nec Sund.).

Vernacular Name:—Tel-badu in Tigré (Heuglin).

Height at withers about 27 inches. General colour deep sandy. Central facial band but little more rufous than the back; no black patch on muzzle. Light facial streak scarcely or not perceptible on sides of muzzle; the area round the eye dull whitish, not sharply defined. Back of ears scarcely lighter than nape. Light lateral band present, not strongly defined. Dark lateral band black, strongly marked, though narrower than in G. thomsoni; a sandy line present between it and the white of the belly. No dark pygal band. Tail sandy at base, the remainder black. Knee-brushes present, dark sandy.

Horns not, or little, longer than the head, lyrate, parallel at base, curving outwards above and then abruptly twisted inwards towards each other at the tip, the ends each forming a sharp hook, similar to that found in G. soemmerringi, but even more strongly bent inwards.

Hab. Bogosland, North-east Africa.

Fig. 71. Fig. 72.

Heads of Heuglin’s Gazelle, ♂ & ♀.

(From specimens in B. M.)

What little we know of this Gazelle is chiefly due to the researches of the late Baron Theodor von Heuglin, an energetic collector and observer of the Mammals and Birds of North-eastern Africa, whose name we have already had frequent occasion to mention in the pages of this work. In the absence of any better designation, we have selected “Heuglin’s Gazelle” as its English name, which is so far applicable that, besides being its first describer, Heuglin is the only naturalist that has recorded observations on it as met with in its native wilds. Heuglin passed several months in the fertile territory of Bogos, north of Abyssinia (now, we believe, included in the Italian colony of “Eritrea”), when attached to the German expedition sent out in search of the much-lamented traveller Dr. Eduard Vogel. He thoroughly explored this country, which is traversed by the River Anseba, and discovered many new birds and mammals, which were subsequently described in his various works. Amongst the mammals was the present species of Gazelle, which he met with only “on the bushy plains round Ain-Saba from 3000 to 5000 feet above the sea-level, in small families of from three to six individuals.” In his original description Heuglin called this Gazelle Antilope melanura, but subsequently altered its specific name to “tilonura,” there having been already an Antilope melanura of Bechstein, which term is, however, a useless synonym of the Oribi (Ourebia scoparia). We have not been able to discover what the term “tilonura” means, but follow the change, which has been adopted by Sir Victor Brooke and other authors.

Little more, we regret to say, can be told of this beautiful species, which is readily distinguishable amongst its congeners by its broad black lateral stripe and lyre-shaped horns with incurved points. Sir Victor Brooke gave a figure of it from a stuffed specimen in his own collection to illustrate his article on the Gazelles in the Zoological Society’s ‘Proceedings’ for 1873. Our figure (Plate LXVI.), which was prepared by Smit under the direction of Sir Victor Brooke, was probably taken from the same specimen, now in the British Museum, to which it has been presented by Sir Douglas Brooke. It was obtained in Bogosland by Essler about 1872. Four other examples of this Gazelle procured at the same time by the same collector are also in the National Collection. From two of these the accompanying illustrations of the head and horns (figs. 71 & 72, p. 160) have been prepared by Mr. Smit.

May, 1898.

THE BOOK OF ANTELOPES, PL. LXVII.

Wolf del. J. Smit lith.

Hanhart imp.

The Red-fronted Gazelle.

GAZELLA RUFIFRONS.

Published by R. H Porter

97. THE RED-FRONTED GAZELLE.
GAZELLA RUFIFRONS, Gray.
[PLATE LXVII.]

Le Kevel, F. Cuv. H. N. Mamm. (fol.) i. livr. 1, pl. 368 (1818); Corine, ii. livr. 36, pl. 369 (1822), and Corine jeune, iv. livr. 72, pl. 370 (1842).

Gazella rufifrons, Gray, Ann. Mag. N. H. (1) xviii. pp. 214 & 231 (1846); id. Knowsl. Men. p. 5, pl. iv. (1850); id. P. Z. S. 1850, p. 115; id. Cat. Ung. B. M. p. 60 (1852); id. Cat. Rum. B. M. p. 39 (1872); id. Hand-l. Rum. B. M. p. 108 (1873); Brooke, P. Z. S. 1873, p. 540; Scl. List An. Z. S. (8) p. 140 (1883); Lyd. Horns and Hoofs, p. 232 (1893); Ward, Horn Meas. (2) p. 159 (1896).

Antilope lævipes, Sund. Pecora, K. Vet.-Ak. Handl. 1845, p. 266 (1847); id. Hornschuch’s Transl., Arch. Skand. Beitr. ii. p. 262; Reprint, p. 82 (1848) (ex Kevel and Corine, F. Cuv., nec Buff.); Wagn. Schr. Säug. Suppl. v. p. 404 (1855).

Gazella lævipes senegalensis, Fitz. SB. Wien, lix. p. 159 (1869).

Vernacular Name:—Seni, on the Gambia (Whitfield fide Gray).

Size medium, form comparatively rather stout. General colour deep sandy rufous, brightening into rich rufous on the forehead and muzzle. Nose-spot blackish. White facial streaks well defined, dark cheek-stripes rufous. Light lateral band broad, sandy buff, about the colour of the shoulders, sharply defined from the colour of the back; dark lateral band narrow, black, sharply defined, very prominent, succeeded below by a narrow edging of sandy. Knee-tufts absent. Tail blackish, except just at the base above, where it is sandy.

Skull of medium build; nasals rather broad and short, broadened behind; nasal opening long and narrow, the upper line of the premaxillæ straighter and less concave than usual. Dimensions of a slightly immature male:—Basal length 7 inches, greatest breadth 3, muzzle to orbit 3·95.

Horns rather short in proportion to the size of the animal, evenly divergent, slightly curved backwards below and forwards above, heavily ringed except for the terminal two or three inches.

Female. Similar to the male, but the horns straight, slender, and less ringed; those of an adult rather less than six inches in length.

Hab. Senegal and Gambia.