280 Dr. Falconer atid Capt, Cautley 



thick fleshy neck, with limited range of motion j and, in more remote se- 

 quence, go to prove the necessity of a trunk. 



3rd. — The very large size of the occipital condyles, which are greater 

 both in proportion, and in actual measurement, than those of the Elephant, 

 the interval between their outer angles, taken across the occipital foramen, 

 being 7'4 inches. The atlas, and the rest of the series of cervical vertebrae, 

 must have been of proportionate diameter to receive and sustain the con- 

 dyles, and surrounded by a large mass of flesh. Both these circumstances 

 would tend greatly to limit the range of motion of the head and neck. 

 But to suit the herbivorous habits of the animal, it must have had some 

 other mode of reaching its food; or the vertebrae must have been elongated 

 in a ratio to their diameter sufficient to admit of free motion to the neck. 

 In the latter case, the neck must have been of great length, and to support 

 it and the load of muscles about it, an immense development would be 

 required in the spinal apophysis of the dorsal vertebrae, and in the whole 

 anterior extremity, with an unwieldy form of the body generally. It is 

 therefore more probable that the vertebras were condensed, as in the Ele^ 

 phant, and the neck short and thick, admitting of limited motion to the 

 head : circumstances indirectly corroborating the existence of a trunk. 



4th. — The face is short, broad, and massive, to an extent not found in 

 the Buminanlia, and somewhat resembling that of the Elephant, and suit- 

 able for the attachment of a trunk. 



Next with regard to the horns : — 



There can be no doubt, that the two thick, short, and conical processes 

 between the orbits, were the cores of horns, resembling those of the 

 Bovine and Antilopine sections of the Ricminantia. They are smooth, and 

 run evenly into the brow without any burr. The horny sheaths which 

 they bore, must have been straight, thick, and not much elongated. None 

 of the bicorned Ruminantia have horns placed in the same way, exactly 

 between and over the orbits -. they have them more or less to the rear. 

 The only ruminant which has horns similar in position is the four-horned 

 Antelope* of Hindustan, which differs only in having its anterior pair of 

 horns a little more in advance of the orbits than occurs in the Sivatherium. 

 The correspondence of the two at once suggests the question, " had the 

 Sivatherium also two additional horns on the vertex?" The cranium in 

 the fossil is mutilated across at the vertex, so as to deprive us of direct 

 evidence on the point, but the following reasons render the supposition at 

 least probable : 



1st. — As above stated, in the bi-cavicorned Ruminantia, the osseous 

 cores are placed more or less to tiie rear of the orbits. 



2nd. — In such known species as have four horns, the supplementary 

 pair is between the orbits, and the normal pair well back upon the 

 frontal. 



3rd. — In the Bovine section of Ruminantia, the frontal is contracted 

 behind the orbits, and upwards from the contraction, it is expanded again 

 into two swellings, at the lateral angles of the vertex, which run into the 

 bases of tlie osseous cores of the horns. This conformation does not exist 

 in such of the Ruminantia as want horns, or as have them approximated 

 on the brow. It is present in the Sivatkei-ium. 



On either supposition, the intra-orbitary horns are a remarkable feature 

 in the fossil : and if they were a solitary pair on the head, the structure, 

 from their position, would perhaps be more singular, than if there had 

 been two additional horns behind. 



Now to estimate the length of the deficient portion of the muzzle, and 

 the entire length of the head-. — 



* The Tetracerus or AiUUope qtiadricornis and Chekara of autJiors. 



