X 
PEERAGE . 
in the same line, and parallel to the antero-posterior axis of the crown. In MMno- 
ceros sivalemis, on the other hand (as is well shown in the upper molar figured 
in Plate Y, fig. 5 of this volume), there is no combing-plate, and the crochet 
is quite unconnected with the outer wall of the tooth ; consequently when the tooth 
is worn down, there are normally not more than two fossettes^ on the crown (as is 
well shown in fig. 6 of Plate LXXIV of the “ Eauna Antiqua Sivalensis ”), while 
the antero-external angle of the tooth is produced into a large buttress (shown 
well in my figure). The teeth of JR. sumatrensis are of the same type, but that 
species is distinguished from JR. sivalemis by having two horns in place of one horn. 
The true molars and premolars of JR. palceindicus (I am here doing little 
more than repeating the matter given in the text of this volume), likewise never 
have a combing-plate (though from specimens lately acquired by the Indian 
Museum, as well as from the young skuU represented in fig. 1 of Plate LXXIY of 
the “ Eauna Antiqua Sivalensis ”), it appears that the milk-molars are, at all events 
sometimes, furnished with one. In the adult dentition (as is shown in fig. 2« of 
Plate LXXIV of the “ Eauna Antiqua Sivalensis”) there are normally three fossettes 
on the worn crown of each tooth, at some period of its wear : these three fossettes are 
not, however, placed in the same antero-posterior line, as in R. indicus, but the 
middle one is placed somewhat externally to the other two (“ Eauna Antiqua Siva- 
lensis”, Plate LXXIY, fig. 2a, Plate LXXY, fig. 1), being cut off from the end 
of the main valley, and not from the hinder side of it. Einally, there is no distinct 
buttress in the true molars of JR. palceindicus (“ Eauna Antiqua Sivalensis,” Plate 
LXXIV, fig. 2a) as in R. sivalensis, the outer surface of each molar being nearly 
flat in the former species. In treating of Rhinoceros palceindicus at page 24s of 
this volume, I noticed a young cranium of that species, which is figured in the 
‘‘Eauna Antiqua Sivalensis ” (Plate LXXIY, fig. 1), and of which there is a cast 
in the Indian Museum. In noticing this cranium in the description of the plate. 
Dr. Ealconer observes : “ Very perfect specimen of cranium with both zygomatic 
arches entire. Shows two molars and two posterior premolars on either side. The 
third molar is still in germ.” Erom the mention of premolars by Dr. Ealconer, it 
is quite evident that he considered the specimen as showing the permanent dentition^ 
and in my notice of the cranium, I naturally followed this identification. If, how- 
ever, we refer to the figure of the cranium in question in the “ Eauna Antiqua 
Sivalensis,” we shall see that the last tooth is less worn than the thud, or any of 
the preceding teeth. On Ealconer’s supposition, the third tooth, being the first true 
molar, should have been more worn than the second tooth, or last premolar. Again, 
had the second tooth been the last premolar, and being as much worn as it is, the 
last true molar would have been in use; further, the first tooth is quite unlike 
a second premolar. Erom the above, it will be quite evident that the four teeth 
in Ealconer’s cranium really are the four milk-molars. There is therefore no abnor- 
* A broken skull, probably belonging to this species, in the Indian Museum shows three fossettes on the two 
middle premolars, but none on the true molars or last premolar. 
