1891.] DR. C. J. FORSYTH MAJOR ON FOSSIL GIRAFFID^. 321 



4. SiVATHERiuM ; and 5. Hydaspitherium \ 



As is well known, the Siwaliks have yielded the remains of Siva- 

 therium and Hydaspitherium, about the relations of which there has 

 been a good deal of discussion. I have to recall to mind that Dr. 

 Murie placed the Sivathere in a distinct family, as showing affinities, 

 in his opinion, with several distinct groups of ruminants, but being on 

 the whole most nearly allied to Antilocapra". These views as well 

 as those of Rlitim.eyer have been opposed by Lydekker, who groups 

 the Sivathere and its allies {Hydaspitherium and Bramatherium) 

 in the same famil}' as the Giraffe, basing his opinion especially on the 

 similarity of the molar teeth, as well as on the transition in the bones 

 of the limbs and neck from Sivatherium to the Giraffe, and on some 

 other characters of minor importance ^ 



I find it necessary to enter into some detail regarding the views 

 propounded by Riitimeyer*, who is most positive in his assertion as 

 to Hydaspitherium, denying on the one hand that it has any relation 

 whatever with the Giraffe, and on the other hand insisting strongly on 

 its affinities with the Damalis group amongst the Antelopes. The 

 Ibrm of the forehead, as well as the implantation of the horns, 

 according to Riitimeyer correspond most of all with Damalis and 

 Alcelaphus. The conformation of the occiput is said to find its 

 nearest analogue in Alcelaphus and especially in A. tora. On the 

 whole the structure of the cranium o'l Hydaspitherium is characterized 

 as an abbreviation of the Damalis skull. 



Even if we admit that in Hydaspitherium the parietal region be as 

 narrow and as much displaced backwards as in some members of the 

 Damalis group {D. tora, caarna, &c.), there would be no sufficient 

 grounds for referring it to these Antelopes, as this same extreme con- 

 formation is found not only in the skulls of some species of Damalis, 

 but is characteristic besides of Connoclicetes, of several Bovines, and 

 even of male adult skulls of some Ovines, such as Ovis argali, 

 O. polii, and O. nahoor. There is a fossil form, loo, found in Samos, 

 Criotherium, in which the parietal region is also reduced to a very 

 the narrow zone, behind and under the horn-cores ; the distinctness, 

 however, of this form from Damalis can be at once determined. 



Moreover, the comparison of the Hydaspitherium skull with those 

 of the Damalis seems to me unjustifiable for other reasons. Riiti- 

 meyer starts from the assumption that the parietal region begins in the 

 Hydaspitherium, as is generally the case in Ruminants, nearly behind 

 the horn-cores — in other words, that the horn-cores are limited to the 



^ I am obliged to postpone my remarks on Bramafherium, having not yet 

 had tbe opportunity of examining the skull from Ferim Island which is pre- 

 served in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. 



^ Greol. Mag. vol. viii. 1871, j)ls. xii. & xiii. — The original memoir on Siva- 

 therium is by Falconer and Cautley : " Sivatherium yiganteum, a new fossil 

 ruminant genus, from tbe valley of Murkuncla, in the Sewalik branch of tbe 

 Subhimalavan Mountains," Asiatic Researches, vol. xix. 1836, p. 1. 



3 R. Lydekker, I. c. vol. ii. pp. 118-142. 



* L. Riitimeyer, ' Beitrage zu einer natiirlicbon Grescbicbte der Hirsche,' i. 

 pp. 79-84. 



