PREFACE. 
XI 
mality in the dental series oP this species, as was the case according to Dr. Ealconer’s 
supposition, and the permanent dental formula given on prge 24 must now he 
made to stand as follows^ : — 
0— ? C ~ P — M — 
J- 1_1 0—0 3—3 3-3 
The table of measurements of the molars will also require the alteration of 
their names, and will read as follows : — 
Length of 1st milk-molar 
„ of 2nd „ 
„ of 3rd „ 
„ of 4th „ 
Width of 1st milk-molar 
,, of 2nd „ 
„ of 3rd „ 
„ of 4th „ 
In. 
. 1-10 
. 1-65 
. 1-90 
. ^ 2-20 
. ‘o-89 
. 1-50 
. 1-8.5 
. 1-90 
Professor Brandt, in identifying H. sivalensis with E. palcRindicus, overlooks 
the above differences in the dentition, as vi'ell as the differences in the crania. 
E. sivalensis (“ Eauna Antiqua Sivalensis,” Plate LXXIII, fig. 2a) has the summit 
of the occiput and parietals raised to a much higher point than in E. palceindicus 
{Ibid., fig. la) ; the interval between the nasals and maxillae is much narrower in 
the former than in the latter ; E. 'palceindicus is further distinguished by its broader 
forehead. Both species agree in being unicorn. 
On page 44 of the same memoir, Professor Brandt classes the Siwalik E. platy- 
rhinus with E. sv.matrensis, in the genus, or sub-genus Ceratorhinus of Gray, ap- 
parently merely on the grounds that both species were furnished with two horns. 
Now, the molars of E. platyrlnnus are of the complex type (as is explained in the 
text) of E. indicus and E. tichorJiinus, and not of the simple type of E. sumatrensis. 
The descriptions given in the text vdll amply show the distinctness of the two 
species above mentioned, and there are now additional materials in the Indian 
Museum which still further illustrate the dentition of the fossil species, and which 
I hope to bring to notice on a future occasion. As evidence apart from the upper 
molars, the occurrence of three distinct forms of mandible of Ehinoceros (apart from 
Acerotherium perimense, which is also represented in the Indian Museum) in the 
Siwaliks, proves the existence there of three species, although their references to 
the three named species by Ealconer (which I have accepted in the text) is 
very probably open to doubt. I have shown that E. platyrhinus, as regards its 
dentition, is nearest to E. indicus, and E. sivalensis to E. sumatrensis, which is 
precisely the reverse of the, what I cannot but call, arbitrary identifications of 
Prof essor Brandt. ‘If characters like those of the teeth described in the sequel are to 
be completely ignored, both Zoology and Palseontology together would be impossible, 
and all the species of a genus might as Avell receive a single name. Professor Brandt 
’ The first milk-molar, which often persists, is not counted here in the permanent series. 
