Vlll 
PEEPACE. 
The first fasciculus of this volume bears a different serial title from the suc- 
ceeding fasciculi ; this discrepancy is owing to the circumstance, that at the time 
of the publication of the first fasciculus, there was no idea entertained, that the Indian 
Museum was likely to acquire the large collection of Siwalik fossils which are now 
exhibited in its cases. 
In the introductory remarks to the second fasciculus, it was stated that the fourth 
fasciculus would be devoted to the description of the remains of Carnivora, and that 
a classified synopsis of the fossil Mammalia of South-Eastern Asia would he ap- 
pended. Since the publication of the second fasciculus the collection of fossil 
Proboscidia in the Indian Museum has increased to such an unexpected extent, that 
it has afforded ample materials for a large fasciculus of itself : the collection of fossil 
Carnivora, on the other hand, is still very imperfect, and its description has accord- 
ingly been postponed : the publication of the synopsis has likewise been deferred. 
No strict systematic arrangement has been adopted in the second, thu’d, and 
fourth fasciculi, many of the specimens having been obtained while the work was still 
in progress, and described out of their proper serial succession : in the fourth fasci- 
culus the same arrangement of the ruminants has been adopted as in the third, for 
convenience of reference. Similarly in the lists of ruminants given on pages 92 and 
ISO, the same grouping has been adopted : the reader will understand, therefore, 
that the arrangement in those lists is in no wis'e a systematic one . in a systematic 
list the goats and sheep would of course be placed with the other Camcornia. In 
the last fasciculus, where the materials were all at hand at the commencement of 
tlie work, a strictly systematic arrangement has been adopted. 
Ehinoceros deccanensis. — Professor Elower^ classes this species under the 
generic, or suh-generic, division Atelodus, in which are included the living 
B. Ucornis and B. simus of Africa, and the fossil B. pachygnathus, B. etruscm, 
B. leptorhmus, B. hemitcechus, and B. tichorhinus of Europe. The lower jaw 
figured in Plate LXXIV, fig. 6, of the “ Eauna Antiqua Sivalensis,” under the 
name of B. sivalensis,^ seems also to indicate an animal belonging to the same 
group. 
Narbada Ehinoceros. — A recent re-examination of the two upper molars of 
a rhinoceros from the pleistocene rocks of the Narbada valley, figured on Plate IV, 
figs. 5 and 6, of this volume, and described on page 32 under the name of BJiino- 
ceros namadicus^ has convinced me that these teeth are specifically indistinguish- 
able from those of the living B. indicus, the very slight differences which I pointed 
out as existing between the recent and fossil last molars not being more than indi- 
vidual varieties. If, therefore, the similarity in the teeth can he relied on, we 
^ Proc. Zool. Soc., 1876, p. 457. 
2 Althougli in the text I have adopted Falconer’s determination of the lower jaws of the Siwalik Ehinocerotes, I 
am quite unacquainted with the grounds on which such determinations were made. 
® The name R. namadicus of Falconer occurs' in the introduction to the “ Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis” (Pal. Mem., 
Vol. I, p. 21), and was, I believe, as stated in the sequel, applied to limb-bones from the Narbada. 
