within the distributional area of the species, the limits of which have yet
to be defined. But it is distinctly remarkable that since the publication
of Mr. Blanfbrd’s note in 1891 not a single word in confirmation o f the
existence of wild gayal has been recorded either by a sportsman or a
naturalist; while Burmese sportsmen with whom I have conversed deny
the existence of the animal in a wild state in the Tenasserim district.
As mentioned under the head o f the preceding species, great confusion
has arisen in the descriptions of travellers between gaur and ,gay;|f§ and the
question as to which form some of the ^animals kept in domestication by
the tribes living in the districts to the northward o f the Bay of Bengal
belong, is still involved in great obscurity. Mr. Blanford’s remarks on the
question are as follows :—c< Bos frontalis was described by Lambert and
Colebrooke as occurring both in the tame and wild state in the hills oil
Tipperah among the Kukis; and Lambert gave a detailed account,
furnished by Mr. M ‘Rae, of the capture of wild animals and their domestication
by these tribes. It has since been ascertained that tame ‘ mithans ’
or ‘ gayals ’ arc found in possession of particular tribes both north and south
of the Assam valley, around Manipur and Cachar, and in the Tipperah,
Chittagong, and Lushai hills as far south as the neighbourhood o f Chittagong.
But the wild bovine of the area in general was ascertained by Blyth,
Sarbo, Anderson, and others to be Bos gaurus. The later evidence is
confusing. Peal {Nature, 5th November 1885, p. 7) states that both wild
and tame animals are.called mithan in Upper Assam, that they, are perfectly
distinct, and ^intermediate forms ever occur ; whilst Sanderson {Thirteen
Years among the Wild Beasts o f India, p. 2 50) declares that in Chittagong the
two forms, wild and tame, are similar. Lastly, Mr. E. C. Steuart Baker
{Asian, 6th March 18 9 1, p. 358) in the north Cachar hills confirms the
old story of the wild mithans being reclaimed by the Kukis. . . . It is
very probable that some of the domesticated mithans are B. gaurus, the
domestication of which by the Kukis was described by Blyth on information
from a missionary, M. Barbe {Journ. As. Soc. .Bengal, vol. xxix. p. 294).
This would explain the old accounts of Mr. M ‘Rae and the recent one
by M B Baker, both of which have every appearancejof authenticity.”
The domesticated herds of gayal enjoy a large amount of liberty,
roaming and feeding at wif|j during the daytime through the forest, and
returning at nightfall of their own accbrd to the villages of their owners.
They never appear to be used either as beasts of burden or for draught ;
and their main use-seems to be for food. It has indeed been stated that
they are also milked, but as the majority at least of the Indo-Chinese tribes
by whom these animals are kept are not milk-drinkers, this seems more
than doubtful.
Gayal breed freely with the Indian humped cattle, and in the London
Zoological Gardens a hybrid between a bull of the latter and a cow gayal
proved fertile. The pedigree of the product»" the pair, crossed with a
male American bison, is as follows :—
Bull Zebu—Cow Gayal.
I_________ 1
A. Hybrid Cow—Bull Bison.
B . Hybrid Cow—Bull Bison.
I I;
I.
C. Hybrid Cow.
The hybrid cow B . was thus the product of three perfectly distinct
species ; so distinct, indeed, that they are regarded by many writers as
representing as many genera. And yet the animal was perfectly fertile.
As might have been anticipated from the preponderance olgbison blood,
the hybrid C. had lost almost all traces of the characters of the original
parents, and become practically indistinguishable from its sire.