532 Dr. C. I. Forsyth Major on 



Siwalik Sits giganteiis, Falc. & Cautl. At the same time 

 he upholds the separation of tlie Indian S. cristatus from the 

 " Javan etc." S. vittatus *. Mr. Lydekker has, I apprehend, 

 been completely misled by the confusion above alluded to in 

 the naming of the skulls. For the form of the cranium of 

 S. vittatus he refers f to fig. 3, pi. xxiv. of the ' Hand-list,' 

 ^^AuJacochcerus vittatus," so that, as a matter of fact, it is 

 S. verrucosus omhoinensis which he is com])aring with 

 S. (jiganteus. Again, when giving his reasons for the assumed 

 specific distinctness of 8. vittatus irom S. cristatus, against the 

 view propounded by Riitimeyer and myself, he assigns to 

 S. vittatus characters which in reality are those of members 

 of the verrucosus group: — "In S. vittatus m. 3 is normally 

 shorter tlian in ;S'. cristatus; its length, especially in the lower 

 jaw, in all typical examples that have come under the writer's 

 notice being less than that of m. 1, m. 2. . . ." %• In a foot- 

 note it is stated that " No. 1362 B, British Museum, is an 

 exception, but this specimen not improbably belongs to 

 S. verrucosus " J. Of the four skulls enumerated in the 

 ' Hand-list' under the heading of " Aulacochoerus vittatus " 

 {Sus vittatus) §, one (1362^) is an immature Sus verrucosus, 

 two others (1362 c & d) are the above-described S. ver- 

 rucosus amhoinensis, and a fourth (1362(7), sine patria, 

 corresponds almost in every particular with S. verrucosus 

 cehhensis, but has the third molars a little more complex. 

 The skull 1362 B, mentioned by Lydekker, was brought 

 from Java by A. R. Wallace ||, but, far from having anytiiing 

 to do with 8. verrucosus, it is precisely one of the t'cw skulls 

 labelled /S'. vittatus which is not S. verrucosus. 



The comparisons instituted by Mr. Lydekker, therefore, 

 strengthen my opinion that it is with the verrucosus group, 

 more especially with amhoinensis and celebensis, and not witii 

 S. vittatus, that S. giganteus presents the closer relation. 

 Without entering here more fully into the argument, it may 

 be j)ointed out that, if we do not limit our comparisons to 

 the Amboina skull, 1362 c, alone, the analogy appears still 

 closer. In the second skull from Amboina, 1362 d, and in 

 several skulls from Celebes, the occipital height is quite 

 as considerable as in the fossil. Again, the Amboina 



* E. Lydekker, "Siwalik and Narbada BunodoutSuina" [Mem. Geol. 

 Surv. India, ser. x. vol. iii. pt. 2, Calcutta, lb84, pp. 50, 54, 58, 59 (IG, 

 20, 24, 25)]. 



t L. c. p. 58 (24), footnote. 



X L. c. p. 50 (16), and footnote 5. 



§ P. 58. 



II Catal. Bones Mamm. p. 277 ; Cutal. Carniv., Pachjd. &c. Mamm. 

 p. 332. 



