Br. J. Murie — On the Sivatherium giganteum. 439 



by the aid of existing forms. PalEeontology, in truth, is based as yet 

 on a narrow but solid foundation of fact, propped up by much that 

 is uncertain or unstable, which future time must test, try, — accept, 

 or reject. For this reason all adventitious drapery thrown around the 

 remnants of the departed requires to undergo a close scrutiny of its 

 genuineness ; and no seeming fittingness can save it from the ruth- 

 less hands of succeeding inquirers should any counterfeit be detected. 



The very singular animal which I purpose treating of in this 

 paper is one of the magnificent series of fossil forms excavated from 

 the Valley of the Murkunda, in the Sewalik branch of the Sub- 

 Himalayan Mountains. 



The indefatigable discoverers of the ancient fauna of the Sewalik 

 range, the late lamented Dr. Hugh Falconer and Capt. Sir Proby 

 T. Cautley (also deceased), first made known and described the re- 

 mains of the extinct Sivatherium giganteum, in a very lucid com- 

 munication in the Asiatic Eesearches, vol. xix., p. 1 (1836).' 



The main deduction may be gathered from the following passage 

 of these authors : — 



" The isolated position, however, of the G-iraffe and the Camelidce 

 make it probable that certain genera have become extinct which 

 formed the connecting links between them and the other genera of the 

 family, and further between the Euminantia and the Pachydermata." 



"In the Sivatherium we have a ruminant of this description 

 connecting the family with the Pachydermata, and at the same time 

 so marked by individual peculiarities as to be without an analogue 

 in its order." 



Dr. Falconer's description^ of the individual bones obviates any 

 lengthened remarks on my part further than what pertains to their 

 supposed taxonomic value. Whilst my observations in some respects 

 support the verdict arrived at by the above-mentioned palaeontologist, 

 they nevertheless differ materially as to their ultimate tendency, 

 pending the attempted restoration of the animal. 



2. Form and structure of the horns. — As regards these, the remarks 

 of the authors of the " Fauna Sivalensis " are so appropriate, and 

 convey so much truth in their deductions, that I do not hesitate to 

 quote their words. Afterwards I shall add what new light my 

 studies enable me to evoke. They observe : — 



" Now what was the character of the horns ? Were they cores 

 of hollow horns, as in the Bovidce ? or branched antlers, as in the 

 Cervidoe ? or were the front the former and the rear the latter ? 



1 A number of fiojures of the cranium are to be found in the " Fauna Antiqua 

 Sivalensis," xci. and xcii., and in unpublished proof-plates of same, now in the Geo- 

 logical Department of the British Museum. Also in Eoyle's " Illustrations of the 

 Botany of the Himalayas," vol. ii., pi. vi. See likewise Journ. Asiatic Soc, vols, iv., v. 

 and vi., for descriptions and figures of various bones. Lastly, consult Dr. Charles 

 Murchison's edition of the " Palseontological Memoirs and Notes" of the late Hugh 

 Falconer, M.A., M.D. (Lond., 1868), vol. i., pp. 247-279, where the original paper 

 above mentioned and copious MS. notes are published, accompanied with eight figures, 

 plates 19, 20, and 21. 



2 I refer both to the original paper and the posthumous MS. notes printed in Dr. 

 Murchison's collected edition of his paleeontological labours. 



