Translator Disclaimer
25 September 2009 Tetracerus quadricornis (Artiodactyla: Bovidae)
David M. Leslie, Koustubh Sharma
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Tetracerus quadricornis (de Blainville, 1816) is 1 of the smallest Asian bovids and commonly is called the four-horned antelope or chousingha. It is endemic to Peninsular India and small parts of lowland Nepal. T. quadricornis is a sexually dimorphic boselaphid of small stature; only males have horns, with 2 of the 3 recognized subspecies having 2 anterior and 2 posterior smooth, sharp horns, unique among wild horned mammals. Tetracerus is monotypic. It prefers dry deciduous forested habitat and hilly terrain and is secretive and little studied. This diminutive species is considered Vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, and it is very uncommon in captivity.

Synonymies completed 13 September 2008

Tetracerus É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier, 1824

Cerophorus de Blainville, 1816:74. Part.

Cervicapra: de Blainville, 1816:75, 78. Part; preoccupied by Cervicapra Sparrman, 1780.

Antilope: Desmarest, 1816:193. Part.

Tetracerus É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier, 1824:unnumbered page associated with pl. 383, vol. vi, livr. 44. Type species Tetracerus striaticornis É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier, 1824, by original designation (see “Nomenclatural Notes”).

Tetracerus Hardwicke, 1825:520. Type species Antilope chickara Hardwicke, 1825; preoccupied by Tetracerus É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier, 1824.

Tetraceros Brookes, 1828:64. Incorrect subsequent spelling of Tetracerus É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier, 1824.

Cervus: É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier, 1832:unnumbered page associated with pl. 364, vol. vii, livr. 65. Part.

Grimmia Laurillard, 1839:624. Part.

Styloceros: Lesson, 1842:174. Part; incorrect subsequent spelling of Stylocerus Hamilton-Smith, 1827.

Context and Content. Order Artiodactyla, suborder Ruminantia, family Bovidae, subfamily Bovinae, tribe Boselaphini. Tetracerus is monotypic.

Tetracerus quadricornis (de Blainville, 1816)

Four-horned Antelope

[Cerophorus (Cervicapra)] Quadricornis de Blainville, 1816:75, 78–79. Type locality “l'Inde.”

Antilope quadricornis: Desmarest, 1816:193. Name combination.

[Tetracerus] Striaticornis É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier, 1824:unnumbered page associated with pl. 383, vol. vi, livr. 44. Type locality unknown; references in text to “Nepaul” [ =  Nepal] and “Bengale,” northeastern India (see “Nomenclatural Notes”).

[Tetracerus] Undicornis É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier, 1824:unnumbered page associated with pl. 383, vol. vi, livr. 44. Nomen nudum (see “Nomenclatural Notes”).

Antilope [(Cervicapra)] Chickara Hardwicke, 1825:520. Type locality “western provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa,” India.

A[ntilope (Tetracerus)]. chickara: Hamilton-Smith, 1827:343. Name combination.

A[ntilope (Tetracerus)]. quadricornis: Hamilton-Smith, 1827:343. Name combination.

A[ntilope]. Chikara J. B. Fischer, 1829:471. Incorrect subsequent spelling of Antilope chickara Hardwicke, 1825.

[Cervus] Labipes É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier, 1832:unnumbered page associated with pl. 364, vol. vii, livr. 65. Type locality “des Mariannes,” islands in the Philippine Sea but not from islands known today as the Northern Marianas Islands.

Antilope chicara Kaup 1835:179. Incorrect subsequent spelling of Antilope chickara Hardwicke, 1825.

A[ntilope]. Tetracornis Hodgson, 1836:524, pt. 6, pl. I. Type locality “Taraï [ =  lowland Nepal].”

Tetracerus chickara: Jardine, 1836:224. Name combination.

T[etracerus]. quadricornes Jardine, 1836:225. Incorrect subsequent spelling of Cerophorus quadricornis de Blainville, 1816.

Antilope (Grimmia) quadricornis: Laurillard, 1839:624. Name combination.

Antilope Sub-4-cornutus Elliot, 1839:225. Type locality “undulating hills of the Mulnad [ =  Malnad],” Karnataka, southern India.

Antilope chicarra É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier, 1842:3. Incorrect subsequent spelling of Antilope chickara Hardwicke, 1825.

Tetraceros chickera Blyth 1842:451. Incorrect subsequent spelling of Antilope chickara Hardwicke, 1825.

Ant[ilope]. subquadricornutus Blyth 1842:452. Justified emendation of sub-4-cornutus Elliot, 1839.

Cervus [(Styloceros)] labipes: Lesson, 1842:174. Name combination.

Tetracerus quadricornis: Gray, 1843:159. First use of current name combination.

Tetracerus subquadricornis Gray, 1843:159. Type locality “Madras,” India.

T[etracerus]. subquadricornutus: Hodgson, 1847:89. Name combination.

T[etracerus]. iodes Hodgson, 1847:90. Type locality “Saul forests [India] beneath the Sub-Himalayas.”

T[etracerus]. paccerois Hodgson, 1847:90. Type locality “Saul forests,” India.

Tetracerus paccervis Gray, 1852. Incorrect subsequent spelling of Tetracerus paccerois Hodgson, 1847.

T[etraceros]. q[uadricornis]. typicus Sclater and Thomas, 1895:215. Usage is equivalent to Tetracerus quadricornis quadricornis and not intended as a new name.

T[etraceros]. q[uadricornis]. subquadricornutus: Sclater and Thomas, 1895:215. Name combination.

Cervus latipes Sclater and Thomas, 1895:216. Incorrect subsequent spelling of Cervus labipes É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier, 1832.

Context and Content. Context as for genus. Groves (2003:353–354) recognized 3 subspecies based on body size, shape of nasals, color and color pattern, length of tail, and number of horns in adult males (Fig. 1); molecular investigations have not been conducted:

Figure 1

Male Tetracerus quadricornis illustrating the 4 horns typical of adult males of 2 subspecies; note enlarged preorbital gland extending below the eye. Photograph by K. Sharma.

i1545-1410-843-1-1-f01.jpg

T. q. iodes Hodgson, 1847. See above.

T. q. quadricornis (de Blainville, 1816). See above.

T. q. subquadricornis Gray, 1843. See above.

Some concern exists over whether subspecific characters include presence or absence of anterior horns because males 10–14 months of age that do not yet have developed anterior horns may be confused for adult males that can be of comparable size (Sharma et al. 2005).

Nomenclatural Notes. The authority and date for Tetracerus have been reported as either Leach, 1825 (Gray 1850; Grubb 2005) or Hardwicke, 1825 (Sclater and Thomas 1895). Confusion exists because Tetracerus was attributed to W. E. Leach (1790–1836) in a note (perhaps authored by an editor) at the end of the publication by Hardwicke (1825:524), based on text read to the Linnean Society of London on 18 February and 17 June 1823. Leach never published this specific nomenclatural act (as far as we can determine), but he did publish other taxonomic volumes (Brewer 1884) and perhaps organized certain specimens under Tetracerus that became generally known during his tenure at the British Museum (Natural History), which ended in 1821 (Lee 1909).

Attributing Tetracerus to Leach would be permitted under Article 50.1.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999) if the attribution to Leach was clear in someone else's publication and if Leach previously satisfied 2 of the 3 criteria of availability by offering a name, a description or indication, or a publication (A. L. Gardner, United States Geological Survey, pers. comm.). The last 2 conditions were not met in Hardwicke's (1825) publication, indicating that Hardwicke himself should be given authority for Tetracerus. A year earlier than Hardwicke (1825), however, É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier (1824) also credited Leach with naming Tetracerus (Sclater and Thomas 1895) and provided its 1st published affiliation with striaticornis, often attributed to Brookes, 1828 (Grubb 2005:697). Nevertheless, É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier's (1824) publication also did not meet the conditions given above.

Credit for Tetracerus was contentious at the time. Sclater and Thomas (1895:217–218) sided with their “countryman,” Hardwicke, who claimed priority in 3 letters to the Linnean Society in January 1825 (Linnean Online Library Catalogue;  http://linnean.org). Hardwicke accused A. Devaucelle (also occurs in print as Devaucel, Duvaucel, and Du Vaucel) of Chandernagore, a French naturalist whom he associated with in India prior to these publications, of plagiarism by giving his drawings and descriptions to É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier, who subsequently used the information in their classic Historie Naturelle des Mammifères. Although historically interesting, Hardwicke's accusations cannot be resolved now and, more importantly, are not relevant to current nomenclatural standards (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999).

Because neither publication by É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier (1824) or Hardwicke (1825) satisfied criteria needed to attribute Tetracerus to Leach, 1825 (Grubb 2005), we changed the authority and date to É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier, 1824, and also credited them with the 1st use of striaticornis. Furthermore, we added undicornis É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Cuvier, 1824, in the synonymy as a nomen nudum (Article 12.1—International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999) because the publication specifically stated that the species description was of striaticornis, not undicornis for which no description was (or has been) provided. Throughout most of the early 1800s, it was not clear how many species should be assigned to Tetracerus because of geographic variation in size and presence (or absence) of the 4 horns. Although zoologists named multiple species of Tetracerus through the 1800s, the genus is now considered monotypic, currently with 3 named subspecies (Groves 2003).

The repetitive etymology of Tetracerus quadricornis in Greek and Latin is four (Tetra, Greek)-horned (keras, Greek) and four (quadri, Latin)-horned (cornu, Latin). Common names of T. quadricornis vary depending on language and country of origin (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 2008; Prater 1980): chousingha, chowsingha, or chausingha (Hindi meaning 4 horns), doda (Hindi), nari komboo marn (Tamil), kondu kuri (Kannada), ghutri (central India), chauka (Nepal), four-horned antelope (English), antilope à quatre cornes or tétracère (French), and antílope de cuatro cuernos (Spanish). Hardwicke's (1825) specific epithet chickara led to some early confusion (Blanford 1888; Elliot 1839; Sclater and Thomas 1895) because the common name for the Indian gazelle (Gazella bennettii) is chinkara.

DIAGNOSIS

Tetracerus quadricornis is 1 of the most diminutive Asian bovids and has no congeners. It is easily distinguished from the only other species in the tribe Boselaphini, the sympatric nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelusLeslie 2008), by its considerably smaller mass (1:9) and height (1:2) and frequent presence of 4 male-only horns (2 posterior and 2 anterior, but lacking in T. q. subquadricornis according to Groves [2003]). Aside from some breeds of domestic sheep, T. quadricornis is the only extant mammal with 4 horns (Figs. 1 and 2).

Figure 2

Dorsal, ventral, and lateral views of skull (British Museum [Natural History] BMNH specimen 1902.8.14.3) and lateral view of mandible (BMNH 1856.9.22.1) of adult male Tetracerus quadricornis. Greatest length of skull is 179 mm.

i1545-1410-843-1-1-f02.jpg

Relative to their mass, stature, coloration, and habitat preferences, T. quadricornis may be confused with the Indian muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak) and hog deer (Axis porcinusNowak 1991). Unlike T. quadricornis, however, males of the latter 2 species have antlers that are shed annually, and both sexes have upper canines. The male Indian muntjac is distinguished further by bony facial ridges that give rise to pedicels to support small antlers. All 3 species are generally solitary, prefer dense vegetative cover, and remain close to water, albeit range overlap in India is minimal. “Jerky” movements of T. quadricornis distinguish it from other comparably sized ungulates in its native range (Blanford 1888:521; Nowak 1991). Although the Indian gazelle can be of comparable mass (Berwick 1974; Krishnan 1972), the white and brown patterning of its pelage and large ringed horns differentiate it from T. quadricornis.

GENERAL CHARACTERS

Male-only horns distinguish sexes of Tetracerus quadricornis (Fig. 1) at maturity; mass is comparable. De Blainville's (1816) initial description focused on the 4 horns and the unique frontal bone of the skull from which they arise. Blanford (1888), Lydekker and Blaine (1914), Prater (1980), and Groves (2003) expanded the species' description: anterior and posterior horns of some males unique among wild ungulates, otherwise general description the same for both sexes; small size and delicate build; pelage thin, short, and lighter in summer but thick, coarse, and darker in winter; color variable, perhaps among currently described subspecies (Groves 2003:354), from dull rufous-red and pale brown to yellow-creamy fawn in summer to brown in winter, with lighter or whitish ventral and inner leg markings without clear demarcation; white ring and tuft of hair on lower legs, sometimes not obvious; muzzle, back of ears, and anterior strips down legs blackish; occasional pair of white spots on each cheek, similar to B. tragocamelus (Leslie 2008); tail short and compressed; large preorbital glands elongated (Fig. 1) and well developed, unguinal glands above dewclaws on rear legs, but no inguinal glands (Gosling 1985; Pocock 1910).

DISTRIBUTION

Tetracerus quadricornis is endemic to the Peninsular Indian and Indus divisions of the Indian Subregion in the Asian Indomalayan Region (Corbet and Hill 1992) and occurs only in India and Nepal (Fig. 3; Chesemore 1970; Krishnan 1972; Prater 1980; Rahmani 2001; Rice 1991; Sharma et al. 2005; Singh and Swain 2003). Extant populations of T. quadricornis are fragmented by human activities, but the species is most abundant in the central states of India (Fig. 3). Isolated populations exist in Gir Wildlife Sanctuary in western India (Sharma et al. 2005:15, figure 4.i; Singh 2001), 2 areas in southern India, 1 in northern India, 2 areas northeast of the central range, and 1 area in Nepal (Sharma 2006).

Figure 3

Distribution of Tetracerus quadricornis in India and Nepal; densities tend to be highest in central parts of the main range in India (Sharma 2006).

i1545-1410-843-1-1-f03.jpg

FOSSIL RECORD

Fossils related to extant tribe Boselaphini are well represented in Africa and Eurasia from the Miocene and represent the earliest bovids that arose 16–18 million years ago (Gentry 1978; Ginsburg and Heintz 1968; Solounias 1990). Pilgrim (1939:138) considered extant Tetracerus the most direct descendant of the primitive and extinct Eostragus (Ginsburg and Heintz 1968). Living Boselaphini (T. quadricornis and B. tragocamelus) are Miocene relicts and most related to early bovids (Pilgrim 1939; Pitra et al. 1997; Prothero and Schoch 2002), with horn morphology (straight and circular in cross section) representing the primitive condition (Geist 1966; Janis 1982; Lundrigan 1996). Tetracerus, Boselaphus, and related fossil forms share similar primitive horn-core ontogeny (Solounias 1990).

The artiodactylan fossil fauna of India is rich and includes extinct genera closely related to T. quadricornis (Colbert 1935; Pilgrim 1937, 1939). India may have been the “developmental centre,” or close to it, of Bovidae because from the lower Miocene “onward the number and variety of Bovine genera found in India is out of all proportion to what is the case in other parts of the world” (Pilgrim 1939:27). Bovids differentiated considerably during the Middle Miocene about 15 million years ago, and Bovini and Boselaphini likely arose 8–9 million years ago in Asia south of the Himalaya Mountains (Bibi 2007; Hassanin and Ropiquet 2004). Seven boselaphine-like genera (Boselaphus, Duboisia, Perimia, Proboselaphus, Selenoportax, Sivaportax, and Tetracerus), based largely on their similar “circular or equilaterally triangular cross-section[s]” of their horn cores, are represented in the fossil record of India (Pilgrim 1939:191). Boselaphus, Duboisia, and Sivaportax are related most closely to Tetracerus (Pilgrim 1939).

Unlike T. quadricornis, females of many related fossilized boselaphines had horns with similar morphology and developmental processes as other bovids (e.g., Hooijer 1958; Kostopoulus 2005). Late Miocene boselaphine fossils from the eastern Mediterranean region are common (Kostopoulus 2005; Kostopoulus and Koufos 2006). Boselaphine-like fossils from the Pleistocene have been found eastward from India to Burma (Blanford 1888; Colbert 1943). Human use of T. quadricornis is evident in the Mesolithic of southern India 5,000–8,000 years ago (Murty 1985) and the Chalcolithic of eastern India about 3,000 years ago (Badam et al. 2001).

FORM AND FUNCTION

Few published records of mass and stature exist for Tetracerus quadricornis. Generally, adults weigh 17–22 kg (Elliot 1839; Nowak 1991; Sharma and Rahmani 2004) and stand 55–64 cm at the shoulder (Nowak 1991; Sclater and Thomas 1895; Sharma and Rahmani 2004). T. quadricornis can be anesthetized with ketamine (>8–12 mg/kg body weight—Shashidhar 1981).

The frontal–parietal profile of the skull of T. quadricornis is “slightly and gently rounded, the occipital meeting the parietal at a right angle” with large lachrymal fossae (Fig. 2; Blanford 1888:519; Lydekker and Blaine 1914). Male-only horns characteristically arise close together just behind the orbits directed upward. They are nearly straight with no arch, black, generally smooth, and sharp.

Mean (± SE) skull and horn characteristics (mm) of males of the 3 subspecies of T. quadricornis outlined by Groves (2003:354) are: T. q. quadricornis with 4 horns: skull length, 192.9 ± 5.47 (n  =  11); nasal breadth, 17.2 ± 1.38 (17); posterior horn length, 90.7 ± 10.61 (23); anterior horn length, 48.6 ± 3.78 (7) in Rajasthan, India, and 31.7 ± 11.31 (11) elsewhere; T. q. iodes with 4 horns: skull length, 191.0 (1); nasal breadth, 18.7 ± 2.52 (3); posterior horn length, 73.5 ± 4.73 (4); anterior horn length, 20.7 ± 5.69 (3); and T. q. subquadricornis with 2 horns: skull length, 187.0 ± 3.0 (3); nasal breadth, 19.7 ± 1.15 (3); posterior horn length, 83.5 ± 13.18 (4). Anterior horns are sometimes represented by only hairless raised bumps (Nowak 1991; Phythian-Adams 1951; Prater 1980). Other skull measurements of a male T. quadricornis are (mm): width of zygomatic arches, 78; width of skull orbits, 80; width of braincase, 56; circumference of horn core at base, 42; length of lachrymal, 39 (British Museum [Natural History] specimen 1858.5.4.41—Pilgrim 1939:171).

Dentition of adult T. quadricornis is typical of bovids: i 0/3, c 0/1, p 3/3, m 3/3, total 32. Canines are incisoriform, and upper molars are short with quadrangular crowns and selenodont cusps and lack additional columns on the inner side (Lydekker and Blaine 1914). Selected dental measurements from a male are (mm): length of premolar series, 27; length of molar series, 35; height of M3, 15; anterior-to-posterior diameter of M3, 14 (specimen number not given—Pilgrim 1939:155).

Specific aging techniques have not been developed for T. quadricornis. Sharma et al. (2005) classified males in Panna National Park in 4 age classes based on presence and lengths of anterior horns of 1 of the subspecies characterized by 4 horns: class 1  =  young-of-the-year < 66% of adult body mass; class 2  =  juvenile males with no evidence of anterior horns, which start to develop at 10–14 months of age in captivity; class 3  =  males with anterior horns ≤ 33% of the length of the posterior horns; and class 4  =  oldest males with anterior horns ≥ 33% of the posterior horns. Most male T. quadricornis in Panna National Park, India, had anterior horns 25–66% the length of their posterior horns, but some males had anterior and posterior horns of equal length (Sharma et al. 2005). “Dark interior [lines] of the ear face” may automimic posterior horns of male T. quadricornis (Fig. 4), enhancing threat signals (Guthrie and Petocz 1970:586).

Figure 4

Male Tetracerus quadricornis in typical habitat of dry deciduous forest edge, Panna National Park, central India; note inner ear markings that may serve to automimic posterior horns in adult males and enhance threat displays (Guthrie and Petocz 1970). Photograph by K. Sharma.

i1545-1410-843-1-1-f04.jpg

ONTOGENY AND REPRODUCTION

The female reproductive tract of Tetracerus quadricornis contains 2 uterine compartments separated by a median anterior-to-posterior septum and small fallopian tubes relative to other ungulates (Weldon 1884). Placental cotyledons number 22–30, about one-half that noted in other antelopes; the fetal chorion has vascular ridges similar to those of the pig (Sus scrofa); and fetuses have a uniserial psalterium ( =  developing omasum—Weldon 1884). Four inguinal mammae are present in females.

Age at sexual maturity of wild T. quadricornis is not clearly understood (Grzimek 1990), but 2 captive females had their 1st offspring at 21 months of age (Acharjyo and Misra 1975a, 1975b). Gestation is about 8 months—long for such a small ungulate (Shull 1958); Asdell's (1946) assertion of a 183-day gestation seems to be an underestimate (Crandall 1964). Interparturition intervals of 1 captive female were 285 and 327 days (Acharjyo and Misra 1975a). Of 64 captive births in Paris, France, 59% were twins and 41% were single births; sex ratio at birth was generally equal; and parturition extended from August through May (Mauget et al. 2000). In captivity in native India, average litter size was 1.6 (Acharjyo and Mohapatra 1980), and 7 neonates were 0.74–1.1 kg at birth, 42–46 cm in total length, with shoulder heights of 24.0–27.5 cm (Acharjyo and Misra 1975a, 1981).

Parturition can occur throughout the year in the wild, but newborns are noted most often in October–November in India (Sharma at al. 2005; Shull 1958). Most newborn sightings are of twins, but later, most sightings are of single offspring suggesting regular loss of 1 offspring (Sharma et al. 2005). Offspring remain with their mothers for about 1 year, and an adult female can be seen with her young-of-the-year and a juvenile, presumably hers (Sharma et al. 2005). Breeding likely peaks in June–July when the chance of seeing pairs of females and males is highest (Sharma et al. 2005:32, figure 7.iv).

ECOLOGY

Population characteristics

Densities of Tetracerus quadricornis in India are generally low and vary depending on habitat conditions, competition with domestic livestock, predation, and degree of protection. Specific densities reported in India are: 0.22–0.75 individuals/km2, Gir Lion Sanctuary (Berwick 1974; Berwick and Jordan 1971; Khan 1997; Khan et al. 1996; Rice 1991); 0.29–0.80 individuals/km2, Pench Tiger Reserve, and 0.29–2.70 individuals/km2, Panna National Park (Biswas and Sankar 2002; Rice 1991; Sharma et al. 2005; Shukla 1997); 0.80 individuals/km2, Nagarhole National Park (Karanth and Sunquist 1992); 1.28 individuals/km2, Dhaknakolkaz Wildlife Sanctuary (Rice 1991); and 2.05 individuals/km2, Kanha National Park (Schaller 1967). No density estimates of T. quadricornis are available from Nepal (Heinen and Yonzon 1994).

Maximum life span of T. quadricornis in captivity is generally ≤10 years (Grzimek 1990; Jones 1982), but 1 individual lived 17 years and 5 months (Weigl 2005). In captivity, 59% of offspring died in their 1st year (Mauget et al. 2000), perhaps reflecting uncertain husbandry techniques. No information exists on survival of offspring in the wild (Berwick 1974), but it is likely less. In Gir National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary, India, female ∶ male ratios were 1:0.62 in winter and 1:0.71 during the hot-dry season; female ∶ offspring (<1 year) ratios were 1:046 in winter and 1:0.14 during the hot-dry season (Berwick 1974). Monthly sex ratios in Panna National Park ranged from 1:0.37 in November to 1:1.45 in July (annual average  =  1:0.72), the larger ratio perhaps reflecting greater visibility of males during the breeding season (Sharma et al. 2005). Female and male T. quadricornis are similar in size and color, but behavioral differences permit estimation of detection probabilities; using such detection probabilities, Sharma (2006) estimated a year-round sex ratio of 1:0.69.

Space use

In India, Tetracerus quadricornis is a habitat generalist (Berwick 1974; Sharma 2006) but is observed mostly in dry deciduous mixed forest with “thickets and clusters of trees even within open dry patches,” hilly terrain, and limited human disturbance (Prater 1980; Sharma 2006; Sharma et al. 2005:37; Singh 2001). In Panna National Park, India, T. quadricornis avoids disturbed areas and uses all other habitats in proportion to their availabilities; height of grassy vegetation is associated with an index of wariness and provides protection from predators (Sharma et al. 2005).

Despite occupying dry forests (Fig. 4), local distributions of T. quadricornis are constrained by daily need for free water (Blanford 1888:521; Krishnan 1972; Prater 1980). T. quadricornis is nonmigratory, and although little is known about its space use, it is likely sedentary (Krishnan 1972) with individuals possibly occupying exclusive home ranges (Sharma and Rahmani 2004).

Diet

Tetracerus quadricornis is herbivorous with a ruminal digestive system. Foraging preferences of T. quadricornis are understood only from limited direct observations of wild individuals (Sharma et al. 2005) and research with tamed animals under conditions that may or may not have reflected their native habitat preferences (Solanki and Naik 1998 cf. Berwick 1974). As a small antelope (Jarman 1974), T. quadricornis forages selectively and eats nutritious plant parts such as fruits, flowers, and fresh leaves (Berwick 1974; Sharma et al. 2005).

In tame-animal trials on grazing plots dominated by grasses and forbs in India, T. quadricornis preferred, in descending order, legumes, other herbaceous species, woody species, and grasses—generally reflecting selection of the most nutritious forage available (Solanki and Naik 1998). In those trials, T. quadricornis selected a diet containing 59.9% legumes: 40.0% Alysicarpus elsinoideys, 10.5% Indiofera cordifolia, and 9.4% A. bupleurifolius. In Gir National Forest, mixed ungulate assemblages partition their food selection, but all depend on woody species during the hot-dry season (Berwick 1974). T. quadricornis preferred woody species in all cafeteria and field experiments (ranked in order of percent occurrence from highest to lowest): Ziziphus mauritiana, Bauhinia racemosa, Emblica officinalis, Acacia leucophloea, Terminalia tomentosa, Bosewellia serrata, Soymida febrifuga, and Lannea coromandelica (Berwick 1974). Sharma (2006) demonstrated preference for Z. mauritiana, A. nilotica, A. leucophloea, A. catechu, E. officinalis, and Dendrocalamus strictus. Fruits of Emblica and Terminalia were consumed by all Indian ruminants examined by Berwick (1974).

Diseases and parasites

Tetracerus quadricornis likely harbors similar disease agents and parasites as other Indian antelopes (Leslie 2008), but published information specific to T. quadricornis is lacking. No particular pathogen or disease has been reported to singularly limit population levels. Sarcocystotic cysts with associated pathology of the heart muscle (Acharjyo and Rao 1988; Rao and Acharjyo 1984), rinderpest (Mathur et al. 1975), pulmonary tuberculosis and the liver fluke Fasciola gigantica (Rao and Acharjyo 1996), and an unidentified parasite of the aorta (Rao and Acharjyo 1984) have been reported for T. quadricornis in captivity.

Interspecific interactions

India has a rich ungulate fauna (Sclater 1896), although it has been diminished by human activities in some areas (Bagchi 2006). Distributional and habitat overlap can be substantial among Tetracerus quadricornis, nilgai, and sambar (Rusa unicolor) and less so with Indian gazelle and chital (Axis axis); overlap with hog deer and blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra) is very uncommon and with Indian muntjac almost nonexistent because the latter dwells exclusively in moist deciduous and evergreen forests (Bagchi 2006; Berwick 1974; Schaller 1967; Sharma et al. 2005). In Panna National Park, common use of fecal piles by T. quadricornis, nilgai, and Indian gazelle suggests the greatest niche separation between T. quadricornis and Indian gazelle (Sharma et al. 2005).

The endangered Indian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) preys on T. quadricornis, although it constitutes only 1.8% of prey items in Pench National Park (Biswas and Sankar 2002), 2.8% in Panna National Park (Chundawat et al. 2006), 3.4% in Sariska Tiger Reserve (Sankar and Johnsingh 2002), and 4.2–15.8% in Nagarjunasagar Srisailam Tiger Reserve (Reddy et al. 2004). T. quadricornis comprised 2.0% and 5.0% of the prey of the leopard (Panthera pardus) in Nagarahole National Park (Karanth and Sunquist 1995) and Gir National Park (Mukherjee et al. 1994), respectively, but there was no evidence of such predation in Sariska Tiger Reserve (Sankar and Johnsingh 2002). Dhole (Cuon alpinus) scats contained 2% remains of T. quadricornis in Nagarahole National Park, India (Karanth and Sunquist 1995). Other large mammalian predators of the Indian Peninsula, such as the endangered Indian wolf (Canis lupus pallipes) and striped hyenas (Hyaena hyaena), have not been noted to prey on T. quadricornis.

BEHAVIOR

Tetracerus quadricornis is a shy, nonherding ungulate and occurs solitarily or in groups of ≤4 individuals throughout the year. In Nagarhole National Park, India, 80% of observations of T. quadricornis were of solitary individuals, and maximum group size was 2 individuals (Karanth and Sunquist 1992). In Gir National Forest, India, maximum group size was 4 but averaged 1.5–1.6 individuals (Berwick 1974); mean group sizes were generally ≤1.2 individuals (Khan et al. 1996). In Panna National Park, India, 69% of individuals were solitary throughout the year, followed by 24% in groups of 2; mean group size increased seasonally, but marginally, from 1.1 individuals in November to 1.6 individuals in May, reflecting an increased chance of female–male association during the breeding season (Sharma et al. 2005).

Few observations of breeding behavior of wild T. quadricornis exist (Fig. 5). Male–female pairs increase in frequency in May–July in Panna National Park suggesting breeding activity, but only two 1- to 2-s copulatory bouts were observed (Sharma et al. 2005). In captivity, Shull (1958:10) described mating behavior that included a precopulatory “period of play, kneeling on their front knees facing each other, interlocking their necks [the latter 2 behaviors reminiscent of the related nilgai—Leslie 2008] and pushing with all their strength.” That was followed by “drill-like” strutting behavior by the male and then copulation (Shull 1958).

Figure 5

Male (left) and female (right) Tetracerus quadricornis associate irregularly and are seen together most often during rut in May–July, Panna National Park, central India. Photograph by K. Sharma.

i1545-1410-843-1-1-f05.jpg

Alarm calls of T. quadricornis are described as a “husky pronk” or “sharp bark” (Phythian-Adams 1951:5); males make a distinct “cough” sound around females, and females make “soft calls” to locate hidden neonates (Sharma 2006; Sharma et al. 2005). Both sexes of T. quadricornis defecate repeatedly at the same location (Blanford 1888; Sharma et al. 2005). Nonrandom clustering of fecal piles of T. quadricornis in some areas suggests a form of communication or advertisement (Sharma et al. 2005), similar to behavior of B. tragocamelus (Leslie 2008). Male and female T. quadricornis use their large preorbital scent glands (Pocock 1910; Fig. 1) to mark vegetation, leaving a white crystallized film (Sharma et al. 2005).

Tetracerus quadricornis is secretive and very wary in present-day India—described as “wideawake” by Phythian-Adams (1951). It will often freeze rather than flee when a threat approaches (Sharma et al. 2005), but it also will make “conspicuous leaps followed by quiet stealthy movements” (Sharma and Rahmani 2004:unnumbered page). T. quadricornis is easily tamed when young (Prater 1980). Berwick (1974) used tame individuals for his feeding preference evaluations in Gir National Forest, India. Males can be bold in captivity and can cause serious injury by goring a handler with their horns (Shull 1958); 1 captive male was described as a “little unruly antelope” (Shashidhar 1981:8), and during breeding, males have been described as “exceedingly wild and mischievous” (Jardine 1836:224–225).

GENETICS

Tetracerus quadricornis has a diploid chromosome number (2n) of 38 and fundamental number (FN) of 38 with 36 acrocentric and subacrocentric autosomes and no metacentric or submetacentric autosomes (Wurster and Benirschke 1968). The X chromosome is medium-sized acrocentric, and the Y chromosome is small metacentric (Wurster and Benirschke 1968). Analyses of 12S and 16S rRNA mitochondrial genes confirm the phylogenetic affinity of T. quadricornis and the nilgai, and affinities with the domestic yak (Bos grunniens—Leslie and Schaller 2009), domestic cow (B. taurus), and American bison (Bison bisonKuznetsova et al. 2002). Given habitat fragmentation, isolation, and small sizes of populations of T. quadricornis, loss of genetic diversity is of concern (Rice 1991).

CONSERVATION

Because of the unique pairs of anterior and posterior horns, Tetracerus quadricornis has been prized as a hunting trophy; some sportsman consider its meat dry and not as palatable as that of other antelopes (Blanford 1888; Nowak 1991), but at least 1 claimed it to be “the best of any antelope or deer” (Phythian-Adams 1951:5). Currently, T. quadricornis is protected in Nepal (Heinen and Yonzon 1994) and India (e.g., Indian Wildlife Protection Act of 1972—Sharma et al. 2005) and considered Vulnerable with decreasing population trends on the Red List of Threatened Species of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (2008).

The rangewide population is estimated at only 10,000 (Mallon 2003). Many populations are protected in various sanctuaries and national parks in India (Rice 1991) and Nepal (Chaudhary 2000; Heinen and Yonzon 1994), but adding to basic knowledge of this little-studied species (Bagchi 2006; Sharma et al. 2005), minimizing habitat loss from human activities (Awasthi et al. 1994; Chhangani 2001; Khan 1995; Singh 2001), and maintaining connectivity among protected areas (Ravan et al. 2005) are ongoing conservation challenges.

Associate editors of this account were Eric Rickart and Pamela Owen. Alfred L. Gardner, Colin P. Groves, and Kris Helgen reviewed the synonymies. Editor was Meredith J. Hamilton.

Acknowledgments

We are particularly grateful to A. L. Gardner, United States Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, for providing assistance with locating rare literature and his patient tutoring to improve the synonymies; Colin P. Groves, Australian National University, and K. Helgen, Smithsonian Institution, also provided input on the synonymies. We thank B. Huffman, J. A. Jenks, and P. R. Krausman for comments on this account and A. L. Fettes, Interlibrary Loan Services, Oklahoma State University; Daria Wingreen-Mason, Cullman Collection, Smithsonian Libraries, Washington, D.C.; and E. Koeneman and T. Coster, Interlibrary Loan, Leiden University, The Netherlands, for providing electronic copies of many seminal pages from rare literature. K. Anderson and L. Tomsett of the British Museum assisted with preparation of the skull images. The Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, supported by Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, United States Geological Survey, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wildlife Management Institute, provided technical support during the preparation of this monograph. The International Snow Leopard Trust, founded in 1981, is a nongovernmental conservation organization based in Seattle, Washington ( www.snowleopard.org), dedicated to the protection of the endangered snow leopard and its Central Asian habitat. KS is particularly grateful to the Bombay Natural History Society and its Director, Asad Rahmani, for support of long-term study of T. quadricornis.

LITERATURE CITED

1.

L. N. Acharjyo and Ch G. Mishra . 1981. Notes on weight and size at birth of eight species of Indian wild ungulates in captivity. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 78:373–375. Google Scholar

2.

L. N. Acharjyo and R. Misra . 1975a. A note on the breeding habits of four-horned anelope (Tetracerus quadricornis) in captivity. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 72:529–530. Google Scholar

3.

L. N. Acharjyo and R. Misra . 1975b. A note on inter-parturition interval of some captive wild mammals. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 73:841–845. Google Scholar

4.

L. N. Acharjyo and S. Mohapatra . 1980. Litter size of some captive wild mammals. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 77:321–325. Google Scholar

5.

L. N. Acharjyo and A. T. Rao . 1988. Sarcocystosis in some Indian wild ruminants. Indian Veterinary Journal 65:169–170. Google Scholar

6.

S. A. Asdell 1946. Patterns of mammalian reproduction. Comstock Publishing Company. New York. Google Scholar

7.

A. K. Awasthi, S. Sharma, and M. K. Das . 1994. Evaluation and status assessment of Panna National Park (MP). Environment & Ecology 12:685–689. Google Scholar

8.

G. L. Badam, P. Behera, and J. Mishra . 2001. Chalcolithic faunal economy at Khambeswarpally, middle Mahanadi Valley, Orissa: a bioarchaeological perspective. Current Science 80:828–830. Google Scholar

9.

S. Bagchi 2006. Assembly rules in large herbivores: a null model analysis of local and regional diversity patterns of ungulates in dry tropical forests of western India. Acta Zoologica Sinica 52:634–640. Google Scholar

10.

S. H. Berwick 1974. The community of wild ruminants in the Gir Forest ecosystem, India. Ph.D. dissertation. Yale University. New Haven, Connecticut. Google Scholar

11.

S. H. Berwick and P. A. Jordan . 1971. First report of the Yale–Bombay Natural History Society studies of wild ungulates at the Gir Forest, Gujarat, India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 68:412–423. Google Scholar

12.

F. Bibi 2007. Origin, paleoecology, and paleobiogeography of early Bovini. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 248:60–72. Google Scholar

13.

S. Biswas and K. Sankar . 2002. Prey abundance and food habit of tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) in Pench National Park, Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Zoology (London) 256:411–420. . Google Scholar

14.

W. T. Blanford 1888. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma: Mammalia. Taylor and Francis. London, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

15.

E. Blyth 1842. [Curator's] Report for the month of April 1842. Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal 11(125), New Series 41:444–470. Google Scholar

16.

E. C. Brewer 1884. Authors and their works with dates being the appendices to “The Reader's Handbook.” Chatto and Windus. Piccadilly. London, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

17.

J. Brookes 1828. A catalogue of the anatomical and zoological museum of Joshua Brookes, esq. F.R.S., F.L.S. &c. George Robins. London, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

18.

R. P. Chaudhary 2000. Forest conservation and environmental management in Nepal: a review. Biodiversity and Conservation 9:1235–1260. Google Scholar

19.

D. L. Chesemore 1970. Notes on the mammals of southern Nepal. Journal of Mammalogy 51:162–166. Google Scholar

20.

A. K. Chhangani 2001. Threats to Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary in relation to flora and fauna. Journal of Nature Conservation 13:177–185. Google Scholar

21.

R. S. Chundawat, P. K. Malik, and N. Gogate . 2006. Ecology of tiger: to enable a realistic projection of the requirements needed to maintain a demographically viable population in India. Final report (1996–1999), Panna Tiger Reserve. Wildlife Institute of India. Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India. Google Scholar

22.

E. H. Colbert 1935. Siwalik mammals in the American Museum of Natural History. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series 26:1–401. Google Scholar

23.

E. H. Colbert 1943. Pleistocene vertebrates collected in Burma by the American Southeast Asiatic Expedition for Early Man. Pp. 395–428 in Research on early man in Burma (H. de Terra and H. L. Movius, Jr., eds.). Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series 32:267–464. Google Scholar

24.

G. B. Corbet and J. E. Hill . 1992. The mammals of the Indomalayan region: a systematic review. Oxford University Press. Oxford, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

25.

L. S. Crandall 1964. The management of wild mammals in captivity. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois. Google Scholar

26.

H. M. D. de Blainville 1816. Sur plusieurs espèces d'animaux mammifères, de l'ordre des ruminans. Bulletin des Sciences par la Société Philomatique de Paris 1816:73–82. Google Scholar

27.

A-G. Desmarest 1816. Antilope, Antilope. 178–208. in. Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle, applique é aux arts, à l'agiculture, à l'économie rurale et domestique, à la medicine, etc. Vol. 2. Par une Societé de Naturalistes et d'Agriculteurs. Chez Déterville. Paris, France. Google Scholar

28.

W. Elliot 1839. A catalogue of the species of Mammalia found in the southern Mahratta Country; with their synonymies in the native languages in use there. Madras Journal of Literature and Science 10:92–108, 207–233. . Google Scholar

29.

J. B. Fischer 1829. Addenda, Emendanda et Index ad Synopsis Mammalium. Sumtibus J. G. Chottae. Stuttgardtiae, Germany. Google Scholar

30.

V. Geist 1966. The evolution of horn-like organs. Behaviour 27:175–214. Google Scholar

31.

A. W. Gentry 1978. Bovidae. 540–572. in Evolution of African mammals. V. J. Maglio and H. B. S. Cooke . Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Google Scholar

32.

É Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier . 1824. Tchicara. Unnumbered page associated with pl. 383, vol. vi, livr. 44 in Historie naturelle des mammifères, avec figures originales, coloriées, dessinées d'après des animaux vivants; publiée sous l'autorité de l'Administration du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle. Tome cinquième. Chez A. Belin, Libraire-Éditeur. Paris, France. Google Scholar

33.

É Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier . 1832. Biche aux pieds tachetés ou biche des Mariannes. Unnumbered page associated with pl. 364, vol. vii, livr. 65 in Historie naturelle des mammifères, avec figures originales, coloriées, dessinées d'après des animaux vivants; publiée sous l'autorité de l'Administration du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle. Tome septière. Chez A. Belin, Libraire-Éditeur. Paris, France. Google Scholar

34.

É Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and F. Cuvier . 1842. Table Générale et Méthodique. 1–6. in. Historie naturelle des mammifères, avec figures originales, coloriées, dessinées d'après des animaux vivants; publiée sous l'autorité de l'Administration du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle. Chez A. Belin, Libraire-Éditeur. Paris, France. Google Scholar

35.

L. Ginsburg and E. Heintz . 1968. La plus ancienne antilope d'Europe, Eotragus artenensis du Burdigalien d'Artenay. Bulletin du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle 40:837–842. Google Scholar

36.

L. M. Gosling 1985. The even-toed ungulates: order Artiodactyla: sources, behavioural context, and function of chemical signals. 550–618. in Social odours in mammals. R. E. Brown and D. W. Macdonald . Vol. 2. Clarendon Press. Oxford, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

37.

J. E. Gray 1843. List of the specimens of Mammalia in the collection of the British Musuem. George Woodfall and Son. London, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

38.

J. E. Gray 1850. Synopsis of the species of antelopes and strepsiceres, with descriptions of new species. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 18:111–146. Google Scholar

39.

J. E. Gray 1852. Catalogue of the specimens of Mammalia in the collections of the British Museum. Part III. Ungulata Furcipeda. Taylor and Francis. London, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

40.

C. Groves 2003. Taxonomy of ungulates of the Indian subcontinent. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 100:314–362. Google Scholar

41.

P. Grubb 2005. Order Artiodactyla. 637–722. in Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. D. E. Wilson and D. M. Reeder . 3rd ed. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland. Google Scholar

42.

B. Grzimek 1990. Grzimek's encyclopedia of mammals. Vol. 5. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. New York. Google Scholar

43.

R. D. Guthrie and R. G. Petocz . 1970. Weapon automimicry among mammals. American Naturalist 104:585–588. Google Scholar

44.

C. H. Hamilton-Smith 1827. Synopsis of the species of the class Mammalia, as arranged with reference to their organization. Order VII.—Ruminantia. Pecora, Lin. 343–344. in The animal kingdom, arranged in conformity with its organization, by the Baron Cuvier, with additional descriptions of all the species hitherto named, and of many not before noticed. E. Griffith, C. Hamilton-Smith, and E. Pidgeon . Vol. V. G. B. Whittaker. London, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

45.

T. Hardwicke 1825. Description of two species of antelope from India. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 14:518–524. Google Scholar

46.

A. Hassanin and A. Ropiquet . 2004. Molecular phylogeny of the tribe Bovini (Bovidae, Bovinae) and the taxonomic status of the kouprey, Bos sauveli Urbain 1937. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 33:896–907. Google Scholar

47.

J. T. Heinen and P. B. Yonzon . 1994. Review of conservation issues and programs in Nepal: from single species focus toward biodiversity protection. Mountain Research and Development 14:61–76. Google Scholar

48.

B. H. Hodgson 1836. Catalogue of Nipalese zoology. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 4:524–525. Google Scholar

49.

B. H. Hodgson 1847. The four-horned antelope of India. Calcutta Journal of Natural History, and Miscellany of the Arts and Sciences in India 8:88–92. Google Scholar

50.

D. A. Hooijer 1958. Fossil Bovidae from the Malay Archipelago and the Punjab. Zoologische Verhandelingen 38:1–112. Google Scholar

51.

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999. International code of zoological nomenclature. 4th ed. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. London, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

52.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 2008. The IUCN Red list of threatened species  www.iucnredlist.org, accessed 14 February 2009.  Google Scholar

53.

C. M. Janis 1982. Evolution of horns in ungulates: ecology and paleoecology. Biological Reviews 57:261–317. Google Scholar

54.

W. Jardine 1836. The naturalist's library. Vol. 4. Mammalia. Part 2. Ruminantia. W. H. Lizars. Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

55.

P. J. Jarman 1974. The social organization of antelopes in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48:215–267. Google Scholar

56.

M. L. Jones 1982. Longevity of captive mammals. Der Zoologische Garten, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Tiergärtnerei (Neue Folge) 52:113–128. Google Scholar

57.

K. U. Karanth and M. E. Sunquist . 1992. Population structure, density and biomass of large herbivores in the tropical forests of Nagarhole, India. Journal of Tropical Ecology 8:21–35. Google Scholar

58.

K. U. Karanth and M. E. Sunquist . 1995. Prey selection by tiger, leopard, and dhole in tropical forests. Journal of Animal Ecology 64:439–450. Google Scholar

59.

J. J. Kaup 1835. Das Thierreich in seinen Hauptformen. Verlag von Johann Philipp Diehl. Darmstadt, Germany. Google Scholar

60.

J. A. Khan 1995. Conservation and management of Gir Lion Sanctuary and National Park, Gujarat, India. Biological Conservation 73:183–188. Google Scholar

61.

J. A. Khan 1997. Estimation of ungulate densities by line transect method in Gir Forest, India. Tropical Ecology 38:65–72. Google Scholar

62.

J. A. Khan, R. Chellam, W. A. Rodgers, and A. J. T. Johnsingh . 1996. Ungulate densities and biomass in the tropical dry deciduous forests of Gir, Gujarat, India. Journal of Tropical Ecology 12:149–162. Google Scholar

63.

D. S. Kostopoulus 2005. The Bovidae (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) from the late Miocene of Akkaşdaği, Turkey. Geodiversitas 27:747–791. Google Scholar

64.

D. S. Kostopoulus and G. D. Koufos . 2006. Pheraios chryssomallos, gen. et sp. nov. (Mammalia, Bovidae, Tragelaphini), from the late Miocene of Thessally (Greece): implications tragelaphin biogeography. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26:436–445. Google Scholar

65.

M. Krishnan 1972. An ecological survey of the larger mammals of Peninsular India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 69:469–501. Google Scholar

66.

M. V. Kuznetsova, M. V. Kholodova, and A. A. Luschekina . 2002. Phylogenetic analysis of sequences of the 12S and 16S rRNA mitochondrial gene in the family Bovidae: new evidence. Russian Journal of Genetics 38:942–950. [Translated from Genetika 38:1115–1124]. Google Scholar

67.

C. L. Laurillard 1839. [d'Orbigny's] Dictionnaire universal d'historie naturelle. Vol. 1. A. Pilon. Paris, France. Google Scholar

68.

S. Lee 1909. Dictionary of national biography. Oxford University Press. Oxford, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

69.

D. M. Leslie Jr 2008. Boselaphus tragocamelus (Artiodactyla: Bovidae). Mammalian Species 813:1–16. Google Scholar

70.

D. M. Leslie Jr and G. B. Schaller . 2009. Bos grunniens and Bos mutus (Artiodactyla: Bovidae). Mammalian Species 836:1–17. Google Scholar

71.

R-P. Lesson 1842. Noveau tableau du règne animal par Mammifères. A. Bertrand. Paris, France. Google Scholar

72.

B. Lundrigan 1996. Morphology of horns and fighting behavior in the family Bovidae. Journal of Mammalogy 77:462–475. Google Scholar

73.

R. Lydekker and G. Blaine . 1914. Catalogue of the ungulate mammals in the British Museum (Natural History). Vol. III. Trustees of the British Museum. London, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

74.

D. P. Mallon 2003. Tetracerus quadricornis. IUCN 2006 Red list of threatened species  www.iucnredlist.org, accessed 27 June 2006.  Google Scholar

75.

S. C. Mathur, S. S. Majumdar, and V. K. Jain . 1975. Suspect rinderpest in a blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus). Indian Veterinary Journal 52:412–413. Google Scholar

76.

C. Mauget, R. Mauget, and G. Dubost . 2000. Ex situ conservation of the four-horned antelope: preliminary study of captive populations in the zoological parks of Paris. 3rd International Symposium on Physiology and Ethology of Wild and Zoo Animals, Advances in Ethology, Supplement to Ethology 35:97. Google Scholar

77.

S. Mukherjee, S. P. Goyal, and R. Chellam . 1994. Standardisation of scat analysis techniques for leopard (Panthera pardus) in Gir National Park, western India. Mammalia 58:139–143. Google Scholar

78.

M. L. K. Murty 1985. Ethnoarchaeology of the Kurnool Cave Areas, south India. World Archaeology 17:192–205. Google Scholar

79.

R. M. Nowak 1991. Walker's mammals of the world. 5th ed. Vol. II. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland. Google Scholar

80.

E. G. Phythian-Adams 1951. Jungles memories. Part IX—antelope and deer. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 50:1–12. Google Scholar

81.

G. E. Pilgrim 1937. Siwalik antelopes and oxen in the American Museum of Natural History. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 72:729–874. . Google Scholar

82.

G. E. Pilgrim 1939. The fossil Bovidae of India. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India. New Series 26:1–356 + plates I–VIII. Google Scholar

83.

C. Pitra, R. Fübass, and H-M. Seyfert . 1997. Molecular phylogeny of the tribe Bovini (Mammalia: Artiodactyla): alternative placement of the anoa. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 10:589–600. Google Scholar

84.

R. I. Pocock 1910. On the specialised cutaneous glands of ruminants. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 78:840–986. Google Scholar

85.

S. H. Prater 1980. The book of Indian animals. Bombay Natural History Society. Bombay, India. Google Scholar

86.

D. R. Prothero and R. M. Schoch . 2002. Horns, tusks, and flippers: the evolution of hoofed mammals. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland. Google Scholar

87.

A. R. Rahmani 2001. India. 178–187. in. Antelopes. Part 4: North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia (D. P. Mallon and S. C. Kingswood, comps.). International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Gland, Switzerland. . Google Scholar

88.

A. T. Rao and L. N. Acharjyo . 1984. Diagnosis and classification of common diseases of captive animals at Nandan in Orissa (India). Indian Journal of Animal Health 33:147–152. Google Scholar

89.

A. T. Rao and L. N. Acharjyo . 1996. Causes of mortality in captive bovids at Nandankanan Zoo. Indian Veterinary Journal 73:793–795. Google Scholar

90.

S. Ravan, A. M. Dixit, and V. B. Mathur . 2005. Spatial analysis for identification and evaluation of forested corridors between two protected areas in central India. Current Science 88:1441–1448. Google Scholar

91.

H. S. Reddy, C. Sprinivasulu, and K. T. Rao . 2004. Prey selection by the Indian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) in Nagarjunasagar Srisailam Tiger Reserve, India. Mammalian Biology 69:384–391. Google Scholar

92.

C. G. Rice 1991. The status of four-horned antelope Tetracerus quadricornis. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 88:63–66. Google Scholar

93.

K. Sankar and A. J. Johnsingh . 2002. Food habits of tiger (Panthera tigris) and leopard (Panthera pardus) in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India, as shown by scat analysis. Mammalia 66:285–289. Google Scholar

94.

G. B. Schaller 1967. The deer and the tiger: a study of wildlife in India. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois. Google Scholar

95.

W. L. Sclater 1896. The geography of mammals: no. V. The Oriental Region (continued). Geographical Journal 8:378–389. Google Scholar

96.

W. L. Sclater and O. Thomas . 1895. The book of antelopes. Vol. I. R. H. Porter. London, United Kingdom. Google Scholar

97.

K. Sharma 2006. Distribution, status, ecology, and behavior of the four-horned antelope Tetracerus quadricornis). Ph.D. dissertation. University of Mumbai. Mumbai, India. Google Scholar

98.

K. Sharma and A. R. Rahmani . 2004. Four-horned antelope or chowsingha (Tetracerus quadricornis Blainville, 1816) ENVIS Bulletin (Wildlife and Protected Areas): ungulates of India 7.  http://www.wii.gov.in/envis/ungulatesofindia/index.htmGoogle Scholar

99.

K. Sharma, A. R. Rahmani, and R. S. Chundawat . 2005. Ecology and distribution of four-horned antelope Tetracerus quadricornis in India. Bombay Natural History Society. Mumbai, India. Google Scholar

100.

M. K. Shashidhar 1981. Translocation of four horned antelope (Tetracerus quadricornis) using ketamine anesthesia. Tigerpaper 8:8. . Google Scholar

101.

R. Shukla 1997. The ecology and status of the Pench Tiger Reserve, India. Tigerpaper 24:5–6. Google Scholar

102.

E. M. Shull 1958. Notes on the four-horned antelope Tetracerus quadricornis (Blainville). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 55:10–11. Google Scholar

103.

H. S. Singh 2001. Antelopes and gazelles: distribution and population status in Gujarat, India. Indian Forester 127:1098–1106. Google Scholar

104.

L. A. K. Singh and D. Swain . 2003. The four-horned antelope or chousingha (Tetracerus quadricornis) in Similipal. Zoos' Print Journal 18:1197–1198. Google Scholar

105.

G. S. Solanki and R. M. Naik . 1998. Grazing interactions between wild and domestic herbivores. Small Ruminant Research 27:231–235. Google Scholar

106.

N. Solounias 1990. A new hypothesis uniting Boselaphus and Tetracerus with the Miocene Boselaphini (Mammalia, Bovidae) based on horn morphology. Annales Musei Goulandris 8:425–439. Google Scholar

107.

A. Sparrman 1780. Luftspringare gazellen, af colonisterna springbock kallad, ifrån sodraste delen af Africa. Kongliga Vetenskaps Academiens nya Handlingar 1:275–281. . Google Scholar

108.

R. Weigl 2005. Longevity of mammals in captivity; from the living collections of the world. Kleine Senckenberg-Reihe 48:1–214. Google Scholar

109.

W. F. R. Weldon 1884. Note on the placentation of Tetracerus quadricornis. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 52:2–6. Google Scholar

110.

D. H. Wurster and K. Benirschke . 1968. Chromosome studies of the superfamily Bovidae. Chromosoma 25:152–171. Google Scholar
David M. Leslie and Koustubh Sharma "Tetracerus quadricornis (Artiodactyla: Bovidae)," Mammalian Species 2009(843), 1-11, (25 September 2009). https://doi.org/10.1644/843.1
Published: 25 September 2009
JOURNAL ARTICLE
11 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top