1836.] of the Dadupur Collection. 497 



Fig. 5 is a fragment containing two molars, apparently the third 

 and fourth milk ones ; the outer enamel of the latter is mutilated, but 

 the interior is perfect, and presents the isolated pillar of the posterior 

 crescent, noticed as remarkable in fig. 1 . 



Fig. 4 is the right half of the lower jaw of a young rhinoceros, 

 but of one somewhat older than the animal to which fig. 1 belonged, 

 for the fourth molar has in fig. 4 suffered detrition. Notwithstanding 

 the difference of age being in the favor of this specimen, the space 

 occupied by the four molars is less than that of the four in fig. 1. 

 The fourth molar is here devoid of the low isolated pillar in the pos- 

 terior crescent, and has the central enamel, or junction of the two 

 crescents, larger than in fig. 1. There are no means of ascertaining 

 whether or not the opposite rows of molars were parallel, but in 

 position of symphysis and set of the teeth in a perfectly straight line, 

 this specimen corresponds with the foregoing. 



Fig. 3 is the exterior view of fig. 4. 



Fig. 2 has its fourth molar just disclosed and rising into the line 

 of molars : it is devoid of the isolated pillar ; but in size corresponds 

 with fig. 1, instead of fig. 3, to Avhich latter it assimilates itself by the 

 fourth and second molars. 



It is difficult to ascertain the degree of importance to be attached 

 to such points of difference : in no specimen from the jaw of an adult 

 animal has any trace of the isolated pillar been hitherto found : oc- 

 curring as this peculiarity does in a deciduous tooth, should nothing 

 similar take place in the permanent t€oth which replaces it, the only 

 chance of determining the question will be the discovery of an entire 

 head. We have noticed an upper jaw, fig. 4, PI. XIX, which indicates 

 the probability of the existence of two species. The examination of 

 the above lower jaws rather confirms this supposition ; but in the 

 event of such slight modifications denoting specific distinctions, we 

 are unable, in consequence of the paucity and incompleteness of speci- 

 mens, to decide which are the milk-teeth of the fossil Indian rhinoce- 

 ros. Nor are we fortunate with respect to the lower maxillary of the 

 adult animal ; figs. 6, 7, and figs. 8, 9, being all that we can bring for- 

 ward. The sections of these two fragments differ in consequence of 

 their being derived one from the posterior, the other from the anterior 

 part of the jaw, which thickens as it approaches to the symphysis. 

 These two specimens resemble the corresponding portions of the 

 lower jaw of the Indian rhinoceros, but are too imperfect to afford 

 any satisfactory measurements for grounds of comparison. 



Anterior Extremity . 



A scapula in our possession is not sufficiently perfect to give accu- 

 3 T 



