212 FAUNA ANTIQUA SIVALENSIS. 



an inclination forward, by a strong tliick simple fang, equalling 

 the crown in diameter. It is nearly of the same size and form 

 as the anterior premolar, and does not rise above the level of 

 that tooth. The enamel of the apex is polished by attrition 

 against the pad of the upper gum, but unworn. In the mode of 

 implantation, general incisor-like form, and degree of develop- 

 ment, the lower canine of Chalicotherium agrees with the 

 corresponding tooth of Anoiolotherium commune ; but the 

 crown is more simple, being devoid of the basal-notched lobules 

 occurring in the latter genus. Its position in the jaw is also 

 more advanced than in Anoplotherium ; the diastemal interval 

 of nearly an inch exceeding the space which would have 

 been occupied by the first or suppressed premolar, had the 

 latter tooth been developed. 



Was there any sexual difference in the canines of Chalico- 

 therium ? Were they present in the male and wantmg to the 

 female? Was the fossil from a male or female? These 

 are interestmg points to determine; but with materials at 

 present limited to a single example it would be idle to 

 attempt solving them; for irregularities in the degree and 

 order of dental suppression are so numerous and variable 

 among different genera in the Ungulate tribes, that there is 

 not a clue to a probable inference on the subject. That the 

 canines iii the fossU were fl^ll grown is proved by the 

 form of the crown and condition of the fang, independently 

 of the evidence furnished by the wear attained by the penul- 

 timate molar that the animal was adult. 



Further, it may be urged that the teeth here described as 

 canines may be considered rather as representing the outer- 

 most incisor of either side. This is in some measure an 

 oj)en question, but the massive deeply-implanted fang is 

 entirely that of a canine ; and the teeth have the position 

 ordinarily occupied by the canines in allied genera. The 

 analogy of the upper jaw, so far as it is worth, is also against 

 their being regarded as incisors. 



Kaup, in his fii-st account of Chalicotherium, describes and 

 figures a large tooth, which was found detached, as probably a 

 canine of C. Goldfussi ; but it is omitted among the figures 

 given with his more recent description in the ' Akten der 

 Urwelt;' whence it would appear that he no longer holds 

 that opinion. In our first memoir it was regarded as a 

 lower incisor of one of the Eppelsheim species of rhinoceros. 

 The evidence now adduced regarding the SewaHk fossil 

 proves, a fortiori, that it could not have been a canine of a 

 species of Chalicotherium. Bronn describes it, in accordance 

 with Kaup's first opinion, and thereon rests a conclusion as to 

 the afiinities of the genus. 



1 



