1891.] dr. c. j. forsyth major on fossil giraffid.e. 323 



6. Helladotherium. 



What I have to remark about the so-cailed Helladotherium sup- 

 ports the views above stated. As to the systematic position of 

 Helladotherium duvernoyi. Gaud., from Pikermi \ Rutimeyer agrees 

 with Gaudry and Lydekker, that we have to do with a form related 

 to the Giraffe ". 



With the Helladotherium of Pikermi Gaudry united a hornless 

 skull from the Siwaliks, which had been originally considered by 

 Falconer as a female Sivatherium ^ : Gaudry adds that Falconer him- 

 self inclines towards this opinion*. The French author confines 

 himself to pointing out a few differences between the Pikermi and the 

 Siwalik form which, in fact, as Lydekker remarks, would not be 

 sufficient to justify a specific distinction of the two specimens. We 

 have a nearly complete description of the Indian skull by Riitimeyer % 

 not from the original, but from the drawing in the ' Fauna Antiqua 

 Sivalensis.' Eiitimeyer also unites the two specimens. The rattier 

 important differences between the two skulls he ascribes partly to 

 the artist of the French plates, partly to the deformation of the 

 Pikermi skull by crushing. I have been able to convince myself from 

 an examination of the original Pikermi skull in Paris that the draw- 

 ing is correct, and that the deformation is no more than Gaudry 

 himself admitted (" un peu comprime de haut en has") ; so that the 

 remarkable elongation of the parietal region of the Pikermi skull, 

 which presents difficulties to Riitimeyer, is perfectly natural. As may 

 be seen from the accompanying sketches of the Helladotherium from 

 Pikermi (fig. 3, p. 324) and the so-called Helladotherium from the 

 Siwahks (fig. 4 B, p. 325) the superior profile in the crania is remark- 

 ably different. The region above and behind the orbits is sHghtly 

 hollowed in the Greek Helladotherium, whilst in the Siwalik skull a 

 convexity is visible in the same position. As appears from the upper 

 view of the Siwalik skull (fig. 4 A, p. 325), the highest point of the 

 elevation in question would correspond to the hinder extremity of the 

 nasals. Such being the case according to the drawing, the nasals 

 would have extended backwards beyond the orbits, an arrangement 

 unknown among Ruminants. A close examination of the original 

 specimen shows, however, that this cannot be. As the cranial roof 

 has been removed in this place, we see clearly that here are pneumatic 



expressed in the summary of the chapter devoted to this genus. •' Whether these 

 remains belong to one or to several species or genera, they unmistakably indicate 

 a connecting link (or links) between the Sivathere and the Giraffe which so 

 effectually bridges over the gap hitherto existing between these animals, as to do 

 aWay with all family distinction between the two." (Indian Tertiary and Post- 

 Tertiary Vertebrata, vol. ii. p. 116.) 



^ A. G-audry, ' Animaiix fossiles et Geologic de I'Attique,' pp. 252-264, 

 pis. xli.-xliv. 



^ L. E.iitimeyer, 'Beitragezueinernatiirl. GeschichtederHirsche,' i. pp. 74-78. 



^ A description of the Plates in the ' Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis,' Supplemen- 

 tary Plate A. figs. 1-1 c (H. Falconer, Palreoutological Memoirs and Notes, 

 1868, vol. i. p. 538). 



* L. c, p. 260. ' L. c. pp. 75-78. 



