OF THE SIVALTK HILLS. 



121 



to the general character than to the detailed boundaries of the bones ; yet it 

 is fortunate, that in some cases where these boundaries are especially re- 

 quired as a distinctive character, as in the naso-frontal and naso-maxillary 

 suture ; our fragments, imperfect as they are, have been provided with 

 them. 



The form of the skull, position of sutures (as far as our fossil fragments 

 exhibit), and the teeth both in number and character, very closely resemble 

 the existing species above referred to. We draw our comparison from a 

 fragment consisting of the posterior portion of the nasals and maxillary 

 bones with the frontal to the posterior border of the orbits. This fragment 

 would alone establish the generic position of the animal, and in the absence 

 of a perfect skull we could not have possessed a specimen more applicable 

 to our present purpose. This fragment in fact contains three of the most 

 prominent points in which the Camel differs from all other Ruminants : here 

 we have the contrasted breadth of the frontal and facial bones, the extreme 

 narrowness of the posterior extremity of the nasals, and the great distance 

 between that point and the anterior border of the orbit, distinctly shewn. 

 In the fossil there is a strong resemblance in all these points to the species 

 now existing ; the swelling of the frontal is as highly developed, and the 

 deep superciliary notch as well defined. The narrowness of the nasal 

 bones on their approach to the frontals is well marked, as also that space 

 occupied by the membranous portion in rear of the nasal bones, and the 

 superciliary foramina correspond in size and position, being placed as 

 remote from the orbit as in the living animal. In viewing this fragment 

 laterally we observe that the orbit has an excessof length on its antero- posterior 

 diameter, the orbit of the existing Camel being either a perfect circle, or 

 having the excess of length in its vertical dimension. The mutilated state 

 of this fragment — (see Figs. 1 and 2, giving an upper and a lateral repre- 

 sentation of the fossil) does not admit of remark or comparison further 



than that the animal to which it belonged was far advanced in age, and had 



2 F 



