: 
_ 
ae? Se eee ee SS 
ee oe 
ae. 
| > 7 


CERCOPITHECID &. 5 
vol. v. p. 739 (1836), but the genus was not determined. 
It is figured in ‘ Falconer’s Paleontological Memoirs,’ vol. i. 
pl. xxiv. figs. 1, 2; and has been referred by H. von Meyer, 
in the passage cited, to Semnopithecus, with the specific 
name subhimalayanus. This generic reference has been 
till lately provisionally adopted by the present writer’. 
The small size of the canine shows that the specimen 
belongs to a female individual, while the horizontal fiat- 
tening of the infraorbital portion of the maxilla, the nearly 
horizontal and elongated inferior border of the orbit, the 
forward position of the cheek-teeth relatively to the orbit, 
and the general “ prognathism,” conclusively show that 
it belongs to a species of Cynocephalus*. This identifica- 
tion is confirmed by the character of the molars, which 
are of relatively large size, and have their inner cusps, or 
columns, expanded antero-posteriorly, so as to partially 
block the median transverse valleys’: in both these respects 
these teeth differ from the molars of Semnopithecus, Cer- 
‘copithecus, Macacus, &c. The writer has been unable to 
compare the specimen with female skulls of all the species 
of the genus. The general contour is not unlike that of 
Cynocephalus babouin; but the lateral surface of the 
maxilla is convex instead of concave; and the teeth are 
of considerably larger size. In respect of the form of the 
maxilla, the female of C. anwbis comes nearer to the fossil. 
The space occupied by the five cheek-teeth is the same as 
in a full-sized male of C. porcarius, but the true molars 
of the fossil are considerably wider. The males of the 
fossil species were probably considerably larger than any 
of the existing species. In the absence of a complete 
series of female skulls of the various existing species, the 
affinities of the fossil cannot be further indicated*. 
Presented by Generals Sir W. E. Baker, K.C.B., 
and Sir H. M. Durand, K.C.B., 1848. 
- The specimen is 3 cofekrod to Cynocephalus in the ‘ Palezontologia ex 
ser. 10, vol. iii. p. 123 (1884). 
2 The latter features are shown in the figures; the perforation in the lateral 
wall of the maxilla is accidental. 
3 Well shown in the figures. 
* Tt may be observed that the maxilla of a large Siwalik ape has been de- 
scribed and figured by the writer (Rec. Geol. Sury. Iad. vol. xii. p. 33) under 
the name of Paleopithecus sivalensis; the molars of this species are, however, 
like those of the living Anthropoid apes, 
