Part 25

Hairs on body longish. At the base of the neck there is a more or less well-defined collar of short hair passing inferiorly above the lower white neck-band. Along the back from the shoulders to the root of the tail extends a crest or mane of long hairs, black over the withers, tipped with white on the rest of the back. Horns as in preceding species.

The skull of an adult male gives the following measurements:—Basal length 8·25 inches, nose to orbit 4·75, width 3·5, horn 9·5.

Female similar to the male, but without horns, and without the black tints on the body; white markings very conspicuous.

Young like the female.

Hab. Forest-districts of Western Africa from Senegal to Angola, and extending thence to the Chobé on the south.

The Bushbucks of the typical section of the genus Tragelaphus appear to be spread all over Africa south of the Sahara, wherever wooded districts suitable for their mode of life are met with. But although they are all nearly similar in general structure they vary much in their markings and other minor characters, and it is an exceedingly difficult task to decide how far these differences should be regarded as specific or subspecific, or in some cases as merely individual variations. A much larger series of specimens from the various localities in the wide area over which this animal ranges than we can yet command is necessary before any certain conclusions can be arrived at on this subject. Meanwhile we propose to follow, as probably approximately correct, the view already put forward on this group by Thomas in his article on the Tragelaphi, published in the Zoological Society’s ‘Proceedings’ for 1891, merely elevating the four forms there treated of as subspecies to the rank of species. Of these four species thus recognized we have already treated of one—Tragelaphus decula, which appears to be a somewhat isolated form only met with in Abyssinia and the immediately adjacent districts. We have now come to the true T. scriptus, which, on the contrary, seems to have a very wide distribution under its various phases.

The “Harnessed Antelope,” as it is usually called in English, was first discovered in Senegal by the celebrated naturalist and traveller Adanson, who visited that Colony in the middle of the last century, and communicated many of his notes and specimens to Buffon. The latter described and figured it in his ‘Histoire Naturelle’ under the name “Le Guib” which Adanson gave as its native name in Senegal, stating that it is found in the woods and plains of the country of the Jaloufs and on the Senegal River. From Senegal also living specimens of both sexes of this Antelope were subsequently received at the Jardin des Plantes, and figured under the same name by F. Cuvier and Geoffroy St.-Hilaire in their great work upon Mammals. Pallas established his “Antilope scripta” upon Buffon’s “Guib,” stating that he had not himself met with examples of it. There can be no doubt, therefore, that this particular local form is entitled to be called Tragelaphus scriptus. Like most of the Senegalese mammals, it also occurs on the Gambia, where Whitfield, and, in more recent days, Dr. Rendall procured specimens which are now in the British Museum.

Descending the West-African coast we find the same species also recorded from Liberia, where Herr Büttikofer and his fellow-explorers of that Republic, as recorded by Dr. Jentink, met with it in many localities and obtained a good series of specimens of it for the Leyden Museum.

In his ‘Reisebilder aus Liberia’ Büttikofer tells us that this Antelope is universally known to the Liberians as the “Red Deer,” and is found wherever the forest is interspersed with meadows and plantations. Its palatable meat is often brought to the market in Moravia. It is the more easily obtained by the hunter because it is by no means shy, and often comes to feed into the vegetable-gardens adjoining the planters’ dwellings. It is also frequently caught alive, and does well in captivity.

Pel, another well-known collector for the Leyden Museum, obtained for that institution examples of this Antelope on the Gold Coast, and there are specimens of it in the British Museum from Fantee, and from Mount Victoria in the Cameroons. We may therefore consider it established that the typical form of Tragelaphus scriptus is found all along the wooded districts of Western Africa from the Senegal River to the Cameroons. But as we proceed further south soon after this a slight alteration in the characters of this Antelope begins to appear.

Hamilton Smith, writing in Griffith’s ‘Animal Kingdom’ in 1827, was the first to notice differences in the specimens of this species from the Congo, which had been sent home by Tuckey’s Expedition, and proposed to name the Congo form Antilope phalerata. M. Pousargues, who has recently published an excellent essay on the Mammals of French Congo-land, informs us that only one of three specimens of this Antelope received at Paris from that country presented the special difference upon which Hamilton Smith mainly based his species—that is, the absence of the longitudinal white stripe on the shoulder and flanks,—and states his opinion that this character is of no systematic value. This opinion is supported by the fact that in one of the two bucks, referred to later on, from Senegambia, now living in the Society’s Gardens, the stripe in question is very conspicuous, whereas in the other it is faintly defined and very short. It is significant, too, that the latter animal is the larger and apparently the older of the two. Hence it is not unlikely that the stripe tends to disappear in old individuals and that the type of T. phaleratus was nothing but an aged example of T. scriptus. However that may be, our knowledge of the Congo form is too incomplete to admit of our regarding it as distinct from the typical Senegambian T. scriptus.

Further to the south, in the valley of the Chobé and Upper Zambesi, T. scriptus is again met with, but under a modified form, which may for the present be regarded as a distinct subspecies. This animal was first discovered by Mr. Chapman on the Botletlie River, and subsequently on the Chobé by Mr. Selous, who described it in his ‘Hunter’s Wanderings’ and in the Zoological Society’s ‘Proceedings’ for 1881. Mr. Selous, in response to an inquiry on this point, kindly informs us that he has never seen a skin either of adult or young of the Chobé Bushbuck marked with an upper longitudinal white stripe; and we learn from his published observations on this animal, and from the skins of it that are now in the British Museum, that the females and young are much less strongly striped and spotted with white than are the adult males.

This does not appear to be the case as regards the typical T. scriptus; and although the entire absence of the upper white band in the form from the Chobé suggests the possibility of identity between it and the form from the Congo, we know nothing of the characters of the females and young of the latter to justify us in assigning the name phaleratus to the subspecies first figured and described by Mr. Selous. The animal for which we propose to adopt Mr. Pocock’s name T. scriptus ornatus may be described as follows:—

Male adult. General characters as in T. scriptus. Height at withers of adult male about 28 inches. Colour dark red, with as many as seven or eight transverse white stripes, about six white spots on the shoulders, and as many as twenty on the hind- quarters, and a line of white spots passing longitudinally above the belly. Belly, chest, and limbs on outer side down to knees and hocks blackish. Face deep greyish fawn, with very faint white eye- spots. A dorsal crest of long white hairs extending from the shoulder to the root of the tail.

Young male. Pale reddish yellow, with spots and stripes much more faintly marked.

Female. Smaller than male, chestnut in colour, marked with only three or four faint white stripes and with fewer spots than in the other sex; belly reddish yellow, paler than the sides of the body; outer side of limbs chestnut above and below the knees and hocks.

Young female. Lighter red and less spotted than adult.

At the end of our list of synonyms of the typical form of this Antelope it will be observed that we have added, with a mark of doubt, Tragelaphus gratus of Rochebrune’s ‘Faune de la Sénégambie,’ upon which Dr. Trouessart has based his Tragelaphus obscurus. All that can be said of Rochebrune’s figure is that, if correctly drawn, it cannot have been taken from Limnotragus gratus, which is at once recognizable by its elongated hoofs, and that it is more likely to have been based on an example of the present species. But we have already on more than one occasion alluded to the untrustworthiness of Dr. Rochebrune’s work, and think it hardly worth while to discuss the subject further.

The Harnessed Antelope is frequently brought alive to Europe from the ports on the West Coast of Africa and does nicely in captivity. It was well represented in the great Knowsley Menagerie, where it frequently bred. In May 1845, as we learn from the ‘Gleanings,’ there was at Knowsley a herd of two males and four females, of which three were then expected to produce young. Both sexes were figured by Waterhouse Hawkins on the 28th plate of that work. Several specimens of it were sold at the dispersal of the Knowsley Menagerie in 1851.

The Zoological Society of London has exhibited specimens of this handsome Antelope ever since its gardens were instituted, but it does not appear to have bred there. Dr. Percy Rendall, F.Z.S., brought home a fine male from the Gambia in 1890, and in the following year a pair was presented to the Society by Sir R. B. Llewelyn, K.C.M.G., the Governor of that Colony. In Mr. Smit’s illustration of this species (Plate LXXXIX.) the figures of the male and female were taken from the Zoological Society’s specimens; the young one in the front was drawn from a specimen from Fantee, in the British Museum.

November, 1899.

122. THE CAPE BUSHBUCK.

TRAGELAPHUS SYLVATICUS (Sparrm.).

Antilope sylvatica, =Sparrm.= Act. Holm. 1780, p. 197, pl. vii.; =id.= Reise etc. p. 517, pl. iii. (1784); =id.= Engl. Tr. i. p. 270, ii. p. 220, pl. vi. (1786); =id.= French Tr. i. p. 293, pl. iii. (lower fig.) (1787); =Schreb.= Säug. pl. cclvii. B (1784); =Bodd.= Elench. Anim. p. 141 (1785); =Gm.= Linn. S. N. i. p. 192 (1788); =Kerr=, Linn. An. K. p. 318 (1792); =Donnd.= Zool. Beitr. p. 643 (1792); =Link=, Beytr. Nat. ii. p. 99 (1795); =Shaw=, Gen. Zool. pt. ii. p. 348, fig. 193 (upper) (1801); =Turt.= Linn. Syst. Nat. i. p. 115 (1802); =G. Cuv.= Dict. Sci. Nat. ii. p. 246 (1804); =Thunb.= Mém. Ac. St. Pétersb. iii. p. 315 (1811); =Licht.= Reise, i. p. 647 (1811); =Fisch.= Zoogn. iii. p. 441 (1814); =Afz.= N. Acta Upsal. vii. p. 220 (1815); =Burchell=, List Quadr. p. 7 (1817); =Goldf.= Schreb. Säug. v. p. 1209 (1818); =Schinz=, Cuv. Thierr. i. p. 396 (1821); =Desmoul.= Dict. Class. d’H. N. i. p. 447 (1822); =H. Sm.= Griff. An. K. iv. p. 275, v. p. 350 (1827); =J. B. Fisch.= Syn. Mamm. p. 472 (1829); =Smuts=, En. Mamm. Cap. p. 87 (1832); =Waterh.= Cat. Mus. Z. S. (2) p. 42 (1838); =Schinz=, Syn. Mamm. ii. p. 428 (1845); =id.= Mon. Säugeth. p. 27, pl. xxix. (1848); =Huet=, Bull. Soc. Acclim. (4) iv. p. 480 (1887).

Antilope (Gazella) sylvatica, =Licht.= Mag. nat. Fr. vi. p. 173 (1814).

Antilope (Addax) sylvatica, =Laurill.= Dict. Univ. d’H. N. i. p. 621 (1861).

Cemas sylvatica, =Oken=, Lehrb. Nat. iii., Zool. p. 733 (1816).

Calliope sylvatica, =Rüpp.= Verz. Senck. Mus. iii. pt. 2, p. 182 (1839).