712 Ml-. C. Forster-Uooper on a 



in these respects differ from those of any other described 

 I'orni of rhinoceros. 



The specific name hugtiense is given for the reason that the 

 .specimen is referred, provisionally at all events, to the upper 

 teeth described by Pilgrim as Acerathei-ium bugtiense (Rec. 

 Geol. Surv. India, vol. xl. part 1, 1910). 



The material on w liich this new genus is founded consists 

 of a moderately complete lower jaw with all the teeth |jresent 

 on each side (PI. X.). Unfortunately the jaw belonged to an 

 exceedingly old individual, and the premolars and molars 

 are all much worn, so much so that in the second and third 

 molars the plane of wear has reached a level lower than the 

 cingulum. Enough is present, however, to show that the 

 teeth are of the Pliinocerotid type in general character and 

 may be compared with those of Acerat her turn. 



The general measurements of the jaw are : — 



cm. 

 Extreme length from tip of procumbent iucisor to 



back of ramus 72'0 



Approximate height of ramus 31-0 



Transverse width of condyle 14'0 



Length of premolar-molar series 32o 



The dental formula is : — I. -, C. ^, Pm. ^, M. ^ 

 The measurements of the teeth are : — 



cm. 



Iucisor, length of enamel crown 5-7 



„ width at base 3-4 



Length. Breadth, 



cm. cm. 



Pm.2 2-9 1-S 



Pm. 3 4-8 3-7 



Pm. 4 5-7 4-0 



M. 1 5-8 4-5 



M. 2 7-0 4-5 



M. 3 7-9 4-9 



With the exce])tion of the fust the premolars are large, and 

 the fourth is practically as large as the first molar. Tiie 

 front premolar shows very little sign of wear, only the 

 enamel at the extreme top being worn away. 



Owing to the position of the incisors, unique in this order, 

 the lower border and front end of the upper })art of the ramus 

 show a peculiar outline. Beneath the molars the contour is 

 fhit (in the actual s})ecimcn it is rather concave, but this 

 seems to be due to cru^liinc). At the level of the hind end 



