PBOM THE SIvXlIK HILLS. 123 



jaw, two* evidently belong to Felis, probably to the Felis cristata of 

 Palconer ; two others have been added to the collection since Dr. 

 Palconer's death, and are not mentioned in the ' Palaeontological 

 Memoirs/ These are of much larger dimensions than, and other- 

 wise differ from, the two remaining fragments of lower jaw. Of the 

 crania, the size agrees with that of the former, which I have sepa- 

 rated as belonging to a distinct species. 



Of the four specimens for which I have retained the specific name 

 of "sii^aZ«nsi5"t, two have been briefly described by Prof. Owen:J. 

 One is a fragment of upper jaw with evidently the deciduous den- 

 tition, and the other is a portion of the lower jaw. The first is thus 

 noticed by the learned palaeontologist : — 



" The molar series in the Sivalik Machcerodus includes, in an ex- 

 tent of li inch, three teeth ; the first, which is simple, single-fanged, 

 and very small, is indicated by the socket ; the second, measuring 

 8 lines in the antero-posterior diameter, is the carnassial or sectorial 

 tooth ; its crown is more compressed, its trenchant margins sharper, 

 and the inner tubercle less developed than in the normal species of 

 Felis. The socket of the third or tubercular molar is behind, or in a 

 line with the sectorial tooth, as in the milk-teeth of the Lion. What 

 remains of the canine indicates its great length ; the breadth of its 

 base is 5 lines ; it is much compressed : the inner surface is flat, and 

 both edges are finely but distinctly serrated." 



On a careful examination of the specimen § in question, I am 

 obliged to differ from so high an authority as Prof. Owen in some 

 points contained in the description just quoted. The canine and 

 sectorial are in situ ; and there is the alveolus for the back molar, 

 which, as in the deciduous dentition of Felis, is very large. But I 

 find no indication whatever of the presence of a molar between the 

 sectorial and canine |1; and I submit that, reasoning a x^riori, we 

 should not expect to find that molar. The dentition in the speci- 

 men is obviously the deciduous dentition, as stated by Prof. Owen 

 himself 1[. In the adult Machcerodus, with the single exception of 



* B M no 16537 and no. 16573 ; Pal. Mem. vol. i. p. 551 ; Fauna Antiq. Siv. 

 unpublished plate N, figs. 6, 6 a, 7, 7 a. I find that Mr. Davies, too, referred 

 these figures to the genus Felis. ,, ,. 7^ , 



t M. Pomel notices the Sivalik Machcsrodus as Meganthereoii icUconen 

 (Cat. des Vert. Foss. &c. p. 56). M. Gaudry, following Pomel, mentions it as 

 Machcsrodus Fcdconeri (An. foss. de I'Attique, p. 113). 



+ « History of Brit. Foss. Mamm.' pp. 178, 179. 



S The specimen has been figured in one of the unpublished plates (pi. JN) ot 

 the ' Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis.' But the artist, Mr. Ford, who was generally 

 very careful, has by an error represented a tooth in front of the sectorial 

 (fig. 3 a). The specimen has been refigured in Pal. Mem. (pi. xxv.). It is 

 numbered in the B.M. 16350. .^ , ,. ,.. AKa^ 



11 Dr. Falconer, in a note on Felis spelesa (Pal. Mem. vol. 11. p. 45b), ex- 

 presses the same opinion. He says :— " In the Sewalik specimen [of Machcs- 

 rodus'] there is an interval between the carnassier and camne of 0-3 inch, part ot 

 which has been artificially rubbed down ; but there is not the least indication 0^^ 

 a fang-int or fang [Owen says there is, and that it is eingle-fanged and simple !]. 

 (The italics are mine.) 



^ Op. cit. p. 178. 



