424 PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY. [Apr. 13, 
On the foregoing grounds it may be inferred that the Hyena 
which has left its remains in the Chinese cave was fully as powerful 
an animal as the Hyena spelea of Europe. It was of a distinct 
species, and, like the feebler one from the Red Crag, manifested, by 
the development of the tubercle from the hind part of the basal 
ridge of the third upper premolar, a tendency to a combination of 
the dental characters on which mainly modern taxonomists have 
rested in the generic distinction of the two best-marked forms of 
existing Hyzena (Crocotta maculata, Kaup, and Hyena striata). 
Ray Lankester has well remarked on this instance of ‘“‘ divergence 
of types as we ascend the geological ladder,” which his H. antiqua 
afforded. The only question is, whether H. sinensis may not have 
climbed to as high a rung, before it finally fell, as did the H. spelea. 
The specimens above described have undergone less change from 
their recent state than have many of the teeth of H. spelea from 
British caves. 
The fossil specimens representing the Hyena sivalensis, B. and D., 
and F. and C., are in the museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 
in that of Dr. Jameson at Suharunpoor, and in the British Museum. 
Of the teeth of the lower jaw the notice is restricted to the fact of 
their “being larger than in the existing Hywena”’*: but whether 
the Indian or the 8. African species, is not stated. From the above 
admeasurements, however, it 1s obvious that the existing species of 
India was meant, viz. the Hyena vulgaris seu striata. 
RHINOCEROS SINENSIS, Ow. 
The genus Rhinoceros is represented by portions of four upper 
molars, and of as many lower molars, in two of which the crown is 
nearly entire. 
The most perfect of the upper molars is the last of the left side, 
m3 (Pl. XXIX. figs. 1 & 2) including the elongated lobes ¢, d, 
continued inward from the outer tract of dentine (here broken away), 
together with the dividing valley, e. The fore and rear sides of the 
tooth converge outwardly, and the hinder lobe has no indent or 
valley penetrating it from that side; both which characters determine 
the place of the tooth in question. The postinternal lobe or ridge 
(d) sends a short broad simple promontory +, p, into the valley e. 
There is no tubercle or ridge at the entry to that valley, which runs 
sinuously outward and forward of nearly uniform depth to the end. 
The fore part of the cingulum (7) descends from the origin of the ant- 
internal lobe (c) to the inner side of its base, where it subsides; the 
hind part of the cingulum is represented by a short thick lobular 
ridge (r') at the inner and back part of the postinternal lobe, d. 
The enamel, two millimetres in thickness at the fore part of the 
grinding-surface, thins off to less than half a millimetre over the 
promontory and end of the valley. In size the molar, as far 
as it is preserved, agrees with the corresponding tooth in Rhinoceros 
sumatranus ; the fore-and-aft diameter of its inner side is one inch 
nine lines. 
* Falconer, ‘ Paleontological Memoirs,’ yol. i. p. 343. 
+ Hist. of Brit. Foss. Mamm, p. 374. 
