442 Dr. J. Murie — On the Sivatherium giganteum. 



separate covering, though this presents difficulties in the way of the 

 sheath being fastened in separate areas. 



By far the most sensible view of the subject, and, indeed, the 

 only satisfactory one which accounts for shape, and absence of 

 suture and burr at the base, is the theory that they must and only 

 could be analogous to those of Antilocapra. A horn with certain 

 external aspects peculiar to those of deer ; a horn likewise possess- 

 ing attributes belonging to antelopes and the Bovida ; a horn dif- 

 fering in every respect from that of the Cameleopards. 



3. Peculiarities of the facial hones. — The imperfect closure of the 

 nostrils by bone, the nasals being of most diminutive size, and appa- 

 rently unconnected either with the maxillaries or premaxillaries, 

 gives a most aberrant character to the Sivatherium. 



Its discoverers truly noted its resemblance to the Pachyderms. 

 As a matter of induction, they were led to believe in the probability 

 of its possessing a trunk. A proboscis in a ruminant they con- 

 sidered to be a most anomalous circumstance. Certam genera of 

 the bovine section. Bos and Buhalus, have shortened nasals, barely 

 impinging on the premaxillaries. Other genera. Bison, Ovibos, and 

 Budorcas, etc., have nasals which do not reach the premaxillaries, 

 a condition met with in few, if any, deer, except Alces, and only 

 occurring sparsely in antelopine genera, notably, in Saiga, Pantha- 

 lops, and Bupicapra. 



Excepting in the Saiga, however, the nostrils and muzzle of the 

 genera mentioned depart little from the ruminant type generally. 



Not only does Sivatherium and Saiga assimilate in the entire 

 separation of the nasals from the maxillary bones, and great saliency 

 of the former, but with true proboscidean feature, have a great scoop- 

 ing out of the bones surmounting the intermaxillaries and maxillaries. 



Pallas, long ago,^ depicted the trunk-like character of the Saiga's 

 nose, and recent researches demonstrate the same thing even more 

 fully than he has done.'^ 



That the Sivatherium had a huge long proboscis, tactile and pre- 

 hensile, as in the Elephant, or to a lessened extent as in the Tapir, 

 does not seem to be established. Falconer and Cautley, from the struc- 

 ture of the facial bones, infer as much. The bones of the face of the 

 Sivatherium and Saiga assimilate closely in pattern, and individually 

 correspond ; and, as in the latter, we have a soft, flabby, enlarged 

 patulous nostril of moderate dimension, it follows, as a matter of 

 probability, that the same existed in the former, as in the Elk and 

 others. For it is to be borne in mind, when we attribute a pachy- 

 derm's trunk to the Sivatherium, that the animal had large heavy 

 horns, occipital and prefrontal, a circumstance vastly different from 

 the Tapir and Elephant tribes. 



4. Formation of the base of the shull. — ^To Mr. H. N. Turner the 

 merit is due of first appreciating trenchant shades of distinction in 



^ " Spicilegia Zoologica." Berlin, 1777. 



2 Vide Proc. Zool. Soc. 1870, pp. 451, 503, figs. 4, 5, 8, and 12 respectively. 



