The late Edward Blyth, well known for many years as the zealous Curator of the Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, was the first to point out that the Kudu had a smaller brother, which, though nearly allied, was specifically quite distinct from its better-known relative. Although it is probable that Blyth was wrong in some of the identifications of previous writers which he assigned to the present species, he was undoubtedly correct in his general views on the subject, and had the merit of assigning to the new _Strepsiceros_ the appropriate name _imberbis_, which at once distinguishes it from its neck-maned ally. It is singular that while the Greater Kudu, as we have just shown, has such a widely-extended range in Africa, the Lesser Kudu is restricted to a comparatively very small area, extending only, so far as is certainly known, from Somaliland in the north to the coast-region of British Central Africa in the south. After Blyth the Smaller Kudu appears to have next attracted the attention of Sir John Kirk. Writing to Sclater from Zanzibar, where he was British Consul, in 1873, Sir John stated that he had obtained from the Brava coast a living female Kudu which appeared to belong to a smaller species than the ordinary form (_cf._ P. Z. S. 1873, p. 195). Two years later, in June 1875, the late Sir Victor Brooke exhibited at a meeting of the Zoological Society of London original drawings by Wolf of the two Kudus, and pointed out the distinctions between them (see P. Z. S. 1875, p. 470). These drawings are, as we have every reason to believe, the originals from which the figures (Plates XCVI. and XCVII. of the present work) were prepared by Smit. In 1878 Sir John Kirk obtained from the Sultan of Zanzibar another specimen of what he called the “Dwarf Kudu” from the southern part of the Somali country, and sent it off to the Zoological Society (see P. Z. S. 1878, p. 441). Unfortunately, however, the animal died on its way home.