“ Large bulls are said to exceed 6 feet in height at the shoulder, but
this is rare and exceptional, 5 feet 8 inches to 5 feet 10 inches being the
usual height. Cows are much smaller, about 5 feet high. A huge bull,
measured by Elliot, was 6 feet 1 £ inches high, 9 feet 6 inches from nose
to root o f tail, tail 2 feet 10 inches long, girth behind shoulder 8 feet.
A cow 4 feet ,10^ inches high measured 7 feet from nose to rump over
curves, and 6 feet 9 inches in girth.”
The greatest shoulder-height recorded by Mr. Rowland Ward is 6 feet
4 inches, in a specimen killed by Lord Powerscourt; a bull shot by the
Maharaja of Kuch Behar coming next, with a height of 6 feet 2 i inches.
Three other bulls measuring liv e r 6 feet are also recorded; one of these
having been measured with extreme accuracy. Colonel Pollok, wh|§
states that the gaur from the eastern side of the Bay of Bengal are
larger than those from India, records an Indian bull standing 6 feet
4i inches (19 hands inch) at the shoulder, a Burmese bull 6 feet
inches (19 hands 3^ inches), and a Burmese cow 6 feet 4 inches (19
hands),. I f accurate, these latter dimensions are the, largest on record,
and bear out the statement as to the superior size of the eastern form of
the species.
With regard to the question whether the Burmese and Malayan animals
should be regarded as indicating a race apart from the typical Indian form,
the following observations may be quoted. Mr. Blanford, for instance,
states that skulls from the Duars o f Bhutan, the Mishmi Hills, and the
Malay Peninsula are much broader in proportion acroj's the forehead
than those from the Indian Peninsula ; adding that he is uncertain whether
this broad-headed form is alone found to the east of the Bay of Bengal,
although inclining to the opinion that it is not. He likewise mentions
that in a skull from the Mishmi Hills in the collection'of Mr. Hume the
frontal concavity -is wanting, thus approximating to the gayal type. And,
i f my recollection serves me right, there are one or more skulls in the
Gaur 27
Indian Museum, Calcutta, from the districts north or east of the Bay of
Bengal, exhibiting a similar conformation of the forehead.
Colonel Pollok writes as follows on this point ilglplNot only does the
Burmese gaur stand higher, but the dorsal ridge extends further back,
to within a spanB||the croup, the dent in the forehead is deeper, the
cylindric crest higher, the horns larger, heavier, and more truncated, and
but seldom w o f l at the tips its in the Indian.” He adds, however, that
even in India gaur are variable, and that those from the Western Ghats
are larger, with a profile more like a ram, than those from the Wynad
district, thereby resembling their Burmese brethren. Further, in the
young Malayan bull, formerly livingfdjn the London Zoological Gardens;
and figured by Mr. Blanford in the Society’s Proceedings for 1890, the
dorsal ridge is represented as terminating in the middle of the back.
Although a larger s e r i^w f specimens may ultimately enable such
division to be made, the _evidence at present available is insufficient to
admit of the gaur from the eastern pjj|§jg>n of the animal’s range— the
sladang of the Malays—-being separated. as a race distinct from the
western form. With regard to the abnormal skulls from the Mishmi
Hills and neighbourhood, I have no suggestion to offer, unless it be
that they indicate a strain of gayal blood.
Another question relates to the absence or presence of a dewlap. Mr.
Blanford states that no distinct dewlap is developed ; and it is certainly
wanting in the British M uscum specimen® On the other hand, a
Travancore planter quoted by Colonel Pollok writes that while some of
the gaur in that district have little or no dewlap, in others that appendage
is well developed, and may form a fold of skin depending several inches
from the neck. So marked indeed is the difference that the natives divide
the gaur into two races, according tHthe presence or absence of the
appendage in question.
The observation recorded above that femapjand young gaur inhabiting