276 Bibliographical Notices. 
sponding parts of 2. javanicus that it would be but a waste of words 
to give a detailed description.” A variety of Lhinoceros sivalensis 
which occurs in the Gaj beds of Miocene age, in Western Sind, is 
described by Lydekker under the name of gajensis. It is known 
from the hinder half of the skull, in which the supraoccipital angular 
ridge is of moderate height and the molar teeth are seen. 
. sivalensis is apparently a unicorn species with a cranium inter- 
mediate between #. indicus and R. javanicus; and though its molars 
are like the teeth in the latter species, it is distinguished by wanting 
the median lower incisors. The fossil form is regarded as the an- 
cestor of its living ally. The second species, 2. pale@indicus, appears 
never to have eg described by Falconer, and the author now gives 
some account of the skull, molars, and mandible. It is found 
throughout the sub-Himalayan Siwaliks, from the Ganges to the 
Indus, but is rare in the Punjab. The true molars are distinguished 
from those of &. sivalensis by the greater flatness of the external 
surface of each tooth, due to the absence of a buttress at the antero- 
external angle. A small skullin the British Museum presents some 
variation in the premolars, but the author refers it to A. pale- 
undicus on account of the form of the head. 
The third species of Rhinoceros (. platyrhinus) also was left 
undescribed by Falconer. It is a two-horned species with very 
wide and thick nasals, and with the supraoccipital region produced 
into a high crest; and presents no affinities with the R. sumatrensis 
or with the Miocene R. Schleiermacherit. Among the European 
fossil species the nearest correspondence is seen in the R. tichorhe- 
nus; but the European species is distinguished by having a nasal 
septum. 
Finally, in his remarks on the pedigree of the Indian species of 
rhinoceros the author observes that 2. javanicus is probably the 
descendant of /?. sivalensis, that the rhinoceros from the Pleistocene 
deposits of the Narbada valley is practically identical with the 2. 
indicus, and that no species in the Siwalik Pliocene beds can be re- 
garded as the direct ancestor of &. indicus, the fossil form R. 
paleindicus being exactly intermediate between the Sumatran or 
Acerotherium type and &. indicus in its molars. The Lhinoceros 
sumatrensis, which is well known to closely resemble the 2. Schlever- 
machert, is supposed to have descended with it from a progenitor 
which is still unknown. The group to which the R. platyrhinus 
belongs is still uncertain, for it had not the aborted premaxilla of 
the Pikermi and African species, from which it is also distinguished 
by the union of the inferior squamosal processes; yet in the form 
of its upper molars it closely agrees with . simus. The Pleistocene 
RR. deccanensis is interred to be a bicorn species from its mandible. 
The paper concludes with a list of the more important memoirs on 
Acerotherium and Rhinoceros, and is illustrated with ten plates, 
which are almost entirely representations of teeth. 
The supplement to Siwalik and Narbada Proboscidia gives a brief 
account of fragments of maxilla and mandible of the Dinotherium 
mdicum from Perim Island; and the Mastodon pandionis is better 
