166 X11. 11. LPDEKKER ON A 1 June 7,

10. The Iohang Tufted Deer. By R. LYDEKKER. [Received June 3,1904.1

(Text-figures 32 & 33.) [The complete account of the new species dewribed in tliiq conimiuiicntion

appears here, but since the iisme aiid proliminary dingnosis mere published in the ‘ Abstract,’ the species is distinguished by the name being U ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ i l ~ d . - ~ D I T O P . ]

The genus Ekaphodzcs has been hitherto known by two species- the typical 3. cephnlophus and the perfectly clist,inct fl. michiarrus, from the Ningpo district, province of Chekiang, on the east cotwt of China. I am now able to add a third. A few days ago Mi,. A. E. Leatham called at the Natural History Museum, bringing with him for determination the skull arid skin of a young male Tufted Deer (Elaphodus), shot by himself last January in the mountains near Ichang, province of Hupei, Central China. Ichang, it may be mentioned, is fully a thousand miles from Ningpo ; and the deer killed by Mr. Leatham was shot high up in the mountains far away from water, whereas h’. michianus is reported to inhabit the reed-brakes on the Ningpo rivers. On looking through the specimens in the British (Niitural History) Museum, I found an adult male skin and skull of an EZaphodus frnm Ichang, collected by Mr. F. W. Styan in 1901 (B.M. No. 1.3.2.17).

Nxternally, Mr. Leatham’s specimen of the Ichang Tufted Deer differs from E. michianus by its decidedly darker and more uniform colour, which is blackish brown, passing almost into Mnck on the limbs, while there is more white on the tail, of which only the 11nsal two-thirds of tlie upper surface is dark, so that the M hole of the tip is white.

The skin of the adult inale sent by Mr. Styan is browner, except down the middle of the back, but exhibits the Same uniformity in general colour. How different these skins really :we in colour from that of X. michianus, it i s not easy to cleter- mine, seeing that the specimens of the latter in the Museum are more or less faded by exposure.

On comparing the skull of Mr. Leatham’s specimen, which is immature and retains the milk-molars, with a skull of a male h’. michiamus of nearly the same age, I find that the nasal bones :%re absolutely and proportionately shorter in the former, their length being l# inch against 24- inches. Moreover, their length is contained 3+ times in the basicranial length, instead of less than 3 times. Another distinction is to be found in the form of the anterior upper milk-molar, which is much shorter (antero- posteriorly) in the Ichang than in the Ningpo skull ; and there :&o appear to be slight differences in the form of the upper lllolars.

Both skulls, it may be observed, show no trace of the pedicles of the antlers, which must accordingly be very late in development.

Equally noteworthy differences are presented when the adult

1904.1 XPW SPECIES OF TUFTED DEER. 167

skull (text-figs. 32 & 33, A) obtained by Mr. Styan a t Ichnng is compared with an adult male skull of E. michianus from Ningpo (No. 78.11.14.3) (text-figs. 32 & 33, B), the latter being somewhat older than the former. The Icliang skull shows the shortness of the nasals characteristic of the immature specimen, the length of these bones being 2$ inches, ap ins t 34 inches in h'. michianus.

Text-fig. 32.

Left lateral view of adult male skulls of EZa Iiodus michianus (A), "aiid E. ichangensie (Bf

prmx., premaxilla ; pr.v., preorbital cavity.

The antler-pedicles are much more developed in the Niqgpo skull, and have a much more outwardly-directed ridge connecting them with the orbit (as shown in text-figure 32, A) ; but this feature may be due, to some extent, to difference in age. The flat surface of the jugal below the orbit is quite narrow in the Ningpo, but

1 G8 MR. R. LYDEKKER OK A [June 7,

broad in the Ichang skull. Very noticeable is the difference in the form of the preorbital fossa, which is rounder, deeper, and less oblique in the Ichang skull. More striking still is the difference in the canines of the two forms, that of the Ichang skull being nearly twice the length of that of the older Ningpo specimen, as well as differing somewhat in shape. Such differences cannot posihly, I think, be accounted for by wear, as I cannot conceive

Froiit view of adult male fikulls of Elo kodus iniclianua (A) and E. ichan.yensis ($3). fr., frontal ; m., nnnal.

how such tusks could become worn, while tliose of the Ningpo skull show no signs of wear. I may add that the figured skulls differ in the form and relations of the premaxilb, but I find this to be a very variable feature.

Compared with a female skull of the typical Tibetan 8. cepha- lophus in the British Museum (No. 92.7.13.1), which is the only specimen of the latter species available, the adult Ichang skull

1904.1 NEW SPECIES OF TUETED DEER. 169

makes a much nearer approach than it does to that of E. michi- anus, showing a similar conformation of the bones below the orbit, and apparently also a very similarly shaped preorbital cavity. The nasal bones are, moreover, of much .the same relative length, their long diameter being one third of the basi- cranial length. On the other hand, E. cephalophus is at once distinguished by its greatly superior size, as is shown by the following table of the basicranial lengths of the four skulls available for comparison :-

E. michianus, male ..................... 6$ inches .................. 1 , female 6,l 1,

Ichang adult male 68 7,

E. cephalophus, female 7 t ,7

..................... ...............

From this it is obvious that the Tibetan skull cannot possibly be the female of the form indicated by the adult Ichang specimen.

If a male skull of E. cephalophus were available for comparison, I have little doubt that important differences between it and the Ichang specimen might be detected. As it is, the former species appears to have a much longer type of skull than the Ichang animal, from which it is also distinguished (so far as can be determined) by the much more solid structure of the walls of the preorbital cavity.

I n any case, the Ichang Deer is broadly distinguished from the Tibetan Elaphodus cephalophus by its grnztly inferior size.

The Eoregoing differences seem to leave no doubt as to the specific distinctness of the Ichang Tufted Deer, which may be named Elaphodus ichangensis (cf. Abstr. P.Z.S. 1904, No. 9, p. 10, June 14). It is chamterised, aa compared with E.michianus, by its darker and more uniform colour, whiter tail, smaller antlers, larger tusks, shorter nasals, and smaller, deeper, and more evenly circular preorbital fossa ; while it is smaller than E. cephalophus.

The type will be the aforesaid adult male skull, collected by Mr. Styan.

I n conclusion, I may take the opportunity of referring to the skull of a female Tufted Deer (B.M. No. 98.3.7.18) obtained, together with the skin, by Mr. C . B. Rickett a t Fing-ling, Fokien, lying considerably to the south of Ningpo. This skull is of the same general type as that of the female of 3. michianus, but differs by its superior size, the basicranial length in the two specimens being respectively 6g and 6$ inches. The Fokien skull is further distinguished by the less marked elevation of the hinder half of the frontal region, which does not develop a median crest, and by the expansion and flattening of the platform formed by the base of the preorbital cavity and the anterior zygomatic root. There are also differences in the form of the paroccipital process in the two skulls, which, with other details, and their marked difference in size, appear to justify the reference of the Fokien Tufted Deer to a separate race, under the name of Elaphodus michianus fociensis.