142 NATURAL. SCIENCE: FEB., 
over, quite like the term armadillo applied to the Glyptodonts, espe- 
cially as its original signification implies diminutive size; and 
surely, in face of the multitude of uncouth terms used by the author, 
there could have been no objection to the use of the name Glypto- 
dont for these animals. The Mammoth is rightly restored on the 
lines of its near relative, the Indian Elephant, but surely the artist 
might have selected a better example of the latter animal as a model 
than the ill-bred, long-limbed, and small-bodied brute he has 
depicted. Why, for example, did he not take the figure of a ‘‘ Koo- 
meriah ”’ Elephant from G. P. Sanderson’s ‘‘ Wild Beasts of India ” ? 
On page 199, the author enters into a comparison between the habits 
of the Mammoth and the African Elephant, and infers that the 
former uprooted fir-trees for food. He forgets, however, that the 
African and Indian Elephant have quite different teeth and quite - 
different food, and that the Mammoth resembled the latter in the 
structure of its molars. Bearing in mind the great external differ- 
ence between the Indian and African Elephant, of which no indica- 
tions are given by their skeletons, it must be admitted that the 
restoration of the American Mastodon is a mere fancy sketch; and 
we quite fail to see the advantage of attempting the restoration of a 
member of any existing genus of animal unless its exact specific 
characters are, more or less, exactly known. The restoration of the 
Woolly Rhinoceros (which the author, as usual, calls by its wrong 
scientific name) appears to be rightly modelled, so far as the head is 
concerned, on the lines of the African Square-mouthed Rhinoceros. 
The artist has, however, made the beast ‘‘ square-mouthed ” with a 
vengeance, and has put the front horn too far back; and he would 
have done better if he had kept close to the figure of the head of the 
living species he drew a few years ago for the Proc. Zool. Soc. More- 
over, the beast is too low at the withers, and has an altogether 
‘‘ sheepish’ expression, which does not convey the proper idea of 
such a magnificent monster. 
In the Indian Sivathere depicted in plate xvi., we note that the 
tips of the antlers are represented as curving forwards and inwards, 
whereas in the figure of the skull on the page facing the plate their 
direction is backwards and outwards. The restoration of the 
Uintathere (miscalled Tzmocevas) in plate xiv., and that of the 
Titanothere (wrongly called Byvontops)3 in plate xv., appear to be 
fairly satisfactory, the feet of the one being formed on the Pro- 
boscidian, and those of the other on the KRhinocerotic model, 
while both have rhinoceros-like heads. Why both the plates should 
be lettered ‘‘ new” extinct quadrupeds, we rather fail to see; and 
we had hoped the latter term had received its quietus. 
3 The author ought to be aware that, if he admits such terms as Brontops and 
Tinocevas to generic rank (if, indeed, they are not synonyms pure and simple), he has 
not the shadow of justification for including the Woolly Rhinoceros in the genus 
of that name. 
