Xll 
PEEPACE. 
makes no mention of the somewhat startling instance (according to his identifica- 
tions) of a Miocene mammal (for R. sivalensis lived in the Miocene period in 
Sind) being identical with a living species, or, in other words, that R. indicus is a 
Miocene species, and was a contemporary of the long extinct Binotlierium, Hyopota- 
mus, and Antliracotherium ; R. sumatrensis being also, according to the same author, 
at least a Pliocene species. As far as I am aware, there are hardly any instances of 
newer Pliocene mammals being identical with living species, and even by far the 
greater number of the Pleistocene forms are extinct. I should be inclined to look 
very doubtfully on such pedigrees for the Indian rhinocerotes even, were they sup- 
ported by strong evidence, which in the present case is conspicuous by its absence. 
The ‘small Rhinoceros tooth described on page 46 and drawn in fig, 10 of 
Plate VI of this volume, as a premolar of an undetermined species, I now think, in 
all probability, is an anterior milk-molar of R, platyrhinus. 
In a recently published memoir on the fossil species of Rhinoceros and the 
allied families,^ Professor C ope has placed Rhinoceros sivalensis in a distinct genus 
under the name of Zalabis. 
This generic distinction is made on the strength of the statement originally 
made by Falconer, that this species was ‘‘ hexaprotodont.”^ I have already shown 
in the text of this volume (p. 63), that the specimens figured in the “Fauna 
Antiqua Sivalensis ” do not support this statement. In that work, there are figured 
three forms of lower jaws of Siwalik Rhinoceros, referred to the three named species, 
none of which are hexaprotodont, and of which the one referred to R. sivalensis 
lias no incisors. None of tlie skulls of R. sivalensis with which I am acquainted 
show any upper incisors. I cannot, therefore, see that there is any evidence on 
which Professor Cope’s new genus can be supported.^ 
The very different conclusions arrived at by Professors Brandt and Cope in 
regard to Rhinoceros sivalensis, afford subject for the most serious reflexions as to 
the present conditions under which palaeontological research is carried on. In this 
case we find two eminent palaeontologists, with precisely the same materials before 
them, arriving at the most opposite conclusions; Professor Brandt identifying 
R. sivalensis with a living species, and Professor Cope referring it to an entirely 
new genus ! The former writer appears to have arrived at his conclusions from 
neglecting to notice the specific differences pointed out by other workers, while 
the latter has relied upon alleged differences which have been shown to be un- 
supported by any kind of tangible evidence. In both cases it was incumbent on the 
writers to have decidedly refuted all points which militate against their own con- 
clusions, before instituting the sweeping changes which such conclusions involve. 
’ Bull. U. S. Geol. Geog. Surv., Vol. V, p. 232. 
2 Professor Cope reckons tke outer lower tusk of Rhinoceros as a canine. 
® I may mention that on page 229 of his above quoted memoir, Professor Cope omits Acerotherium jperimense • 
from his list of that genus, Rhinoceros iravadicus from the genus Rhinoceros, and R. deccanensis from the genus 
Atelodus ; Professor Cope also alludes to the Siwaliks as being undoubtedly of upper Miocene age ! 
