268 PALiEONTOLOGr. 



the same matrix. The teeth have distinct crowns, and are decidedly 

 hypsodont. In both jaws they form a perfectly unbroken series. Ho- 

 malodontotJienum seems to be " an extremely generalized type, related 

 on the one hand to Rhinoceros, through Hyracodon also (though more 

 remotely) to Macrcmchenia^ and'apparently connecting these true perisso- 

 dactyle forms with the more aberrant Nesodon and Toxodon.'' L. C. M. 



Plower, W. H. Description of the Skull of a species of Halitherium 

 {H. Canhami) from the Bed Crag of Suffolk. Quart. Journ. Geol. 

 Soc. vol. XXX. pp. 1-7, pi. i. 



The skull had been broken along a vertical plane corresponding 

 with the fronto-parietal suture, and the fore part, which alone is pre- 

 served, much worn. The fragment is larger than the corresponding 

 part in recent Sirenia. It differs also in the strong division which 

 exists between the orbit and the nasal fossa, in the apparently weU- 

 developed nasals, and in the dentition, which shows a more generalized 

 condition than in them. The incisors are unknown. Among the 

 Sirenia of Miocene and Pliocene age the present fossil comes nearest 

 to Halitherium Schinzi, from which it differs in its superior size and 

 massiveness, as well as in osteological details. The author remarks 

 that " the discovery of a Halitherium allied to the species found in the 

 neighbourhood of Darmstadt is an additional instance to those already 

 recorded of the existence in our Crag of forms characteristic of the 

 Miocene fauna of the Rhine valley." L. C. M. 



PooTE, R. B. Rhinoceros deccanensis. Palseontologia Indica, ser. x. 

 1, pp. 1-17, plates i.-iii. 



This new species is represented by portions of a skuU found in a 

 lacustrine deposit of supposed Pleistocene age, near Gokak, Belgaum 

 District. A bovine, allied to the recent JSibos gaurus, and a smaller 

 but similar Bhinoceros have also been discovered in the same beds. 

 R. deccanensis belongs to the hypsodont section ; the incisors are absent 

 or rudimentary ; the mandibular symphysis is prolonged into a narrow 

 beak-like projection ; the first premolar is not persistent ; and there is 

 a well- developed guard in the molar series. A detailed comparison 

 is made with all the recorded recent and fossil species. L. C. M. 



Foesyth-Majoe, C. J. [PossH Lemuridce.'] JS". Jahrb. p. 67. 

 Thinks that Lophiotherium Laharpii (Palseontographica, Bd. xxii. 

 t. vi. fig. 61) may be an extinct monkey, aUied to the Lemurs. 



. " Sopra alcuni Binoceronti fossili in Italia." [Possil Bhino- 



ceroses from Italy.] BoU. B. Com. geol. Ital. pp. 94-97, and 

 Yerh. k.-k. geol. Beichs. pp. 30-32. 

 Argues that the Bhinoceros from the Quaternary deposits of the 

 neighbourhood of Bome and Arezzo is not R. leptorhinus, but R. 

 hemitoichus. This latter is said to be a synonym of R, MercTcii, Jaeger, 

 which has priority. On the other hand R. MercMi, Meyer, is not 

 Jaeger's species, but is identical with R. etruscus. E. B. T. 



