HIPPOPOTAMUS. 136 



fragment from whicli we draw our comparisons ; the two in- 

 cisive holes are very distinct, btit those referred to by Cuvier 

 as commencing on the edge of tlie maxillaries in a small 

 channel and terminating on the incisives by another hole, are 

 not so distinctly marked, although it is by no means impro- 

 bable that in clearing the fossil which is embedded in a hard 

 and crystalline sandstone, the two holes have been made into 

 one ; we have before noted the fissm-e separating the incisive 

 bones, and those (not so strongly marked bnt equally open 

 outwardly) of the junction between the incisives and maxil- 

 laries, or that space between the canine and the third incisive. 

 The extremity of the muzzle in front of the two canines forms 

 part of a circle ; if this segment be divided into seven equal 

 parts, and one part given to each echancrure (of which there 

 are three), and two parts to each of the incisive bones con- 

 taining the alveoli of the incisors, a tolerable idea of the 

 proportions of this region will be obtained. The incisors of 

 the uj)per jaw, as before remarked, are in diameter smaller 

 than those of the lower ; they project but slightly from the 

 alveoli, are directed downwards, and obliquely truncated on 

 their internal faces. 



It now merely remains with us to compare the occipital 

 face with that of the African animal, which may be best done 

 by a reference to our table of measurements. We note, how- 

 ever, the great difference in the proportions in breadth to 

 height, which in the latter animal are as 2 to 1, whereas in the 

 Sewalik fossil the proportion is as 3 to 2, showing, as was 

 before remarked, an increased height of the occipital crest. 

 To proceed, therefore, to the lower jaw : — 



In comparing the lower jaw with that of the existing animal, 

 independently of the additional incisors, we have a marked 

 difference and distinction in the form of the ramus, the enormous 

 descending process of which is, if anything, more extravagantly 

 developed (PI. XII. fig. 4). This strange appendage peculiar 

 to the genus, and formed for the attachment of the masseter 

 and temporal muscles, is here of a form less tapering and 

 more deep and massive in its proportions than in the existing 

 animal ; the posterior margin is more round and the anterior 

 or that descending from the base of the maxillary bone, 

 which in the existing animal is ctirved and pointed forwards, 

 is here blunt and unmarked by any peculiarity of form. This 

 angle is inclined otitwards, and the outer surface is as de- 

 pressed for the reception of the muscles as that of the living- 

 Hippopotamus. We observe no increase of height in the 

 coronoid process, but it differs from the living animal in not 

 being projected so much forward. There appears to be no 

 difference in the condyles nor in their position with reference 



