50 Description of the Sivatherium, &;c. [Jan. 



The structure of the teeth suggests an idea regarding the peculiarities 

 of the herbivorous habits of the animal. In the description it was noticed 

 that the inner central plate of enamel ran in a flexuous sweep, somewhat 

 resembling what is seen in the Elasmotherium, an arrangement evidently 

 intended to increase the grinding power of the teeth. It may hence be 

 inferred, that the food of the Sivatherium was less herbaceous than that 

 of existing horned ruminants, and derived from leaves and twigs : or that 

 as in the horse, the food was more completely masticated, the digestive 

 organs less complicated, the body less bulky, and the necessity of regur- 

 gitation from the stomach less marked than in the present Ruminantia. 



The following dimensions, contrasted with those of the Elephant and 

 Rhinoceros, Mill afford a tolerably accurate idea of the size of the Siva- 

 therium. They are characteristic, although not numerous: — 



Elephant. 

 From margin of foramen magnum to the first 



molar, 23.10 inch 



Greatest width of the cranium, 26.0 



Do. do. of face between the malar bones,. . . . 18.5 



Greatest depth of the skull, 1 7.80 



Long diameter of the foramen magnum, .... 2.55 



Short do do do 2.4 





Indian 1 -horned 



Sivatherium. 



Rhinoceros. 



. 18.85 



inch. 



24.9 inch. 



22.0 





12.05 



16.62 





9.20 



11.9 





11.05 



2.6 





2.6 



2.3 





1.5 



Average of the above, 15.06 12.38 10.22 



If the view which we have taken of the fossil be correct, the Sivathe- 

 rium was a very remarkable animal, and it tills up an important blank in 

 the interval between the Ruminantia and Pachydermata. That it was a 

 ruminant, the teeth and horns most clearly establish ; and the structure 

 which we have inferred of the upper lip, the osteology of the face, and the 

 size and position of the orbit, approximate it to the Pachydermata. The 

 circumstance of any thing approaching a proboscis is so abnormal for a ru- 

 minant, that at the first view, it might raise a doubt, regarding the correct- 

 ness of the ordinal position assigned to the fossil ; but when we inquire 

 further, the difficulty ceases. 



In the Pachydermata, there are genera with a trunk, and others with- 

 out a trace of it. This organ is therefore not essential to the constitution 

 of the order, but accidental to the size of the head, or habits of the animal 

 in certain genera. Thus in the Elephant, nature has given a short neck 

 to support the huge head, the enormous tusks and the large grinding 

 apparatus of the animal; and by such an arrangement, the construction of 

 the rest of the frame is saved from the disturbance w Inch a long neck 

 would have entailed. But as the lever of the head became shortened, some 

 other method of reaching its food became necessary ; and a trunk was 

 appended to the mouth. We have only to apply analogous conditions to a 

 ruminant, and a trunk is equally required. In fact, the Camel exhibits a 

 rudimentary form of this organ, under different circumstances. The upper 

 lip is cleft; each of the divisions is separately movable and extensible, 

 so as to be an excellent organ of touch. 



The fossil was discovered near the Mnrkanda river, in one of the small 

 valleys which stretch between the Kydrda-dun and the valley of Pinjor, in 

 the Sivdlik or sub-Himaiayan belt of hills, associated with bones of the 

 fossil Elephant, Mastodon, Rhinoceros, Hippopotamus, &c. So far as our 

 researches yet go, the Sivatherium was not numerous. Compared with the 

 Mastodon and Hippopotamus, ( H. Sivdlensis, Nobis, a new species cha- 

 racterized by having six incisors in either jaw;) it was very rare. 

 Northern Dodb, Sept. 15, 1835. 



