1836.] of the Dadupur collection. 495 



rhinoceros, there is a greater space between the two. Such modifica- 

 tions of form are however fortuitous, differences of equal amount 

 being observable in the teeth of animals of the same existing species. 

 This fossil measures in length, in. 2.50 met. 0.0645 

 in breadth, „ 2.62 „ 0.0675 



Fig. 6. The 5th molar, derived from a left maxillary. The outline 

 of its enamel accords with that of the similar tooth of the Indian 

 rhinoceros, the only difference being in the dimensions and in the 

 enamellated edge of the short beading at the anterior side of the 

 tooth. 



It measures in length, in. 2.08 met. 0.053 

 in breadth, „ 3.27 „ 0.0835 



Fig. 7, is the 7th molar, and from a right maxillary ; the point of 

 the small spur is broken, as also the anterior extremity of the external 

 line of enamel ; but the tooth is sufficiently perfect to show a close 

 resemblance to the analogous molar of the Indian rhinoceros. 

 It measures in length, in. 2.88 met. 0.0735 

 in breadth, „ 2.53 „ 0.065 



Fig. 8, is the 7th molar of a left maxillary ; the difference observa- 

 ble between this and the foregoing specimen consists in the great 

 development which the small anterior spur here attains ; in the for- 

 mer it is scarcely observable ; in fig. 8 it is very prominent. Varia- 

 tions to an equal amount may, however, be observed in the minor 

 saliants, &c. of enamel in teeth appertaining to skulls of the same 

 existing species. No weight can therefore be attached to such unim- 

 portant modifications. 



This fossil measures in length, in. 2.95 met. 0.075 

 in breadth, „ 2.55 „ 0.065 



Fig. 5, offers a good example of the difference of length at the 

 upper and lower parts of the tooth ; the greatest length, which is that 

 taken near the top, is given above ; the least external length taken at 

 the base would have been in. 2.04, or nearly half an inch less than 

 the top measurement. 



The cranium PI. XV. has its molar teeth so much worn down, that 

 the configurations of the enamel cannot be traced ; the table of dimen- 

 sions gives the length and breadth of each tooth, and shows that 

 although the lengths do not materially differ from those of the cor- 

 responding teeth of the existing species, the breadths exceed those of 

 any hitherto described. 



Without complete illustrations of the milk-teeth of existing species, 

 it would be dangerous to attempt a comparison between them and the 

 fossil Indian rhinoceros. We have therefore avoided the endeavour ; 



