178 FAUNA ANTIQUA SIVALENSIS. 



of the vertebral artery, the transit of that vessel to the head 

 having been outside, and not through the bone. But this is 

 merely an abnormal variation in the individual nowise affect- 

 ing the species. The bone differs somewhat in form from 

 that of the Indian Rhinoceros and is smaller, indicating a 

 distinct species. 



A second specimen in my possession happens also to be- 

 long to the left side of the atlas of a Rhinoceros. It shows 

 more of the body but less of the ala than the other, and has 

 the arterial hole hi the usual position. The form of the bone 

 and size confirm the distinctness of species indicated by 

 Captain Cautley's specimen. 



A third specimen is fortunately also very characteristic. 

 It consists of a fragment of the left temporal bone, showing 

 the posterior half of the zygomatic arch, the entire glenoid 

 articulating surface, the external auditory foramen, a portion 

 of the petrous bone and part of the temporal fossa. The 

 styloid and petrous apophyses are broken off. It appears to 

 have belonged to rather a yoimg animal, as the commissure 

 between the base of the zygoma and the petrous bone is not 

 completely ossified. The fragraent adheres to the tongue, 

 and is but imperfectly fossilized. The characters yielded by 

 it bear out the difference of species, indicated by the other 

 specimens, between the Indian Rhinoceros and the Tibet 

 remains. The glenoid articulating surface — a very character- 

 istic structiu'e — has a different outline from that of the Indian 

 animal ; the base of the zygomatic process has less vertical 

 height in proportion, and the dimensions are somewhat less. 

 The collections contain other fi-agments referable to the 

 Rhinoceros, but too much mutilated to afford any good 

 character for description or comparison. There are no traces 

 of any other Pachydermatous animal ; but Elephant remains 

 will probably be found hereafter, when the ground is well 

 examined, if they have not been already met with.^ 



It is a point of much interest as regards the general 

 bearing of the inquiry, to determine whether these Rhino- 

 ceros remains differ specifically or not from the fossil species 

 of the Sewalik range ; but the available materials, in both 

 cases, are too imperfect to warrant any safe conclusions on 

 the subject. It appears sufficiently clear, however, that the 

 Tibet fossil s^Decies differ from the existing Indian Rhi- 

 noceros. 



Ruminant Remains. — These are the most abundant in species 

 and in the numerical ratio of specimens. Fig. 1, PI. III. 

 of Royle's ' Illustrations,' represents a very perfect cranium 



' Vide M'Clelland's Kumaou Inciuiries, quoted above. 



