CAMEL. 231 



This summary brings vis at once to tte comparison of our 

 fossil species with the existing Camelidce. 



In pursuance of the rule that we have proposed to foUow 

 in naming the new species so as to ally them at once to the 

 mountain series, whence their remains have been obtained, 

 we propose calling the largest, and that nearly approaching 

 the Indian species, Camelus Sivalensis ; for the second or a 

 smaller species, the description of which we shall enter upon 

 more fully hereafter, and which may perhaps have been more 

 closely allied to the Lama, we propose the name of Camelus 

 antiquus. ' 



Camelus Sivalensis. 



Of the Camelus Sivalensis we draw our description from the 

 remains both of the skull and of the bony structure of the 

 animal generally. We have at present only portions of the 

 skull to guide us. The remains of the lower jaw, however, 

 are perfect, including the coronoid processes. The arti- 

 culating ends of bones are in sufficient abundance, and in a 

 sufficient state of preservation to enable us to form a very 

 tolerable idea of the size and height to which the animal 

 must have attained. 



To commence with a comparison between the fossil skull 

 and that of the Dromedary or Common Camel in use in the 

 Bengal Provinces. From the imperfection of our fossil 

 fragments, and the sutures not being distinctly traceable in 

 most cases, we must be satisfied with a view limited more to 

 the general character than to the detailed boundaries of the 

 bones ; yet it is fortunate, that in some cases where these 

 boundaries are especially required as a distinctive character, 

 as in the naso-frontal and naso-maxillary suture, our frag- 

 ments, imperfect as they are, have been provided with them. 



The form of the skull, position of sutures (as far as our 

 fossil fra,gments exhibit), and the teeth, both in number and 

 character, very closely resemble the existing species above 

 referred to. We draw our comparison from a fragment con- 

 sisting of the posterior portion of the nasals and maxillary 

 bones, with the frontal to the posterior border of the orbits. 

 This fragment would alone establish the genuine position of the 

 animal, and in the absence of a perfect skull we could not have 

 possessed a specimen more applicable to our present purpose. 

 This fragment, in fact, contains three of the most prominent 

 points in which the Camel differs from all other Ruminants. 

 Here we have the contrasted breadth of the frontal and facial 

 bones, the extreme narrowness of the posterior extremity of 



' Only one species of Camel, C. Siva- I ' Fauna Aatiqua Sivalensis.'^[ED.] 

 lensis, was subsequently figured in the | 



