PREPACE. 
XV 
SiWALiK Artiodactyla DESCRIBED IN 2nd PART. — Since the publication of 
the second fasciculus of this volume, the hst of Siwalik suine AHiodactyla has 
been considerably increased, and the list given on page 78 is consequently incom- 
plete : to that list must now he added — 
Syotherimn sindiense. 
Sivameryx. 
JBLemimeryx. 
Chceromeryx silistrensis has also turned out to he distinct from Anthracotherium 
silistrense} 
Pal^ortx. — Two upper molars in the Indian Museum, from the Siwaliks, 
seem to me to he in all probability generically identical with Falceoryx of the 
Pikermi beds of Attica.^ I cannot, ' however, at present he quite certain of this 
determination, owing to the extreme difficulty of distinguishing the molars of many 
genera of ruminants. 
PoRTAX. — Some upper and lower jaws with ruminant teeth, from the Siwaliks, 
appear to me generically indistinguishable from those of Fortax, and indicate a 
Siwalik representative of that genus. 
PoRTAX NAMADicus (Riit.). When noticing the additions made by Professor 
Riitimeyer to the Indian fossil Ruminants,® I had not observed the new Narbada 
species of For tax (P. namadicus) named by the Professor, from the hinder part 
of a skull in the British Museum.^ The addition of this species to the Narbada fauna 
is of great importance, as connecting the living and Siwalik species. 
An atlas of a ruminant in the Narbada collection of the Indian Museum corre- 
sponds so exactly with the atlas of Fortax picUis (except in being slightly larger) 
that I think it probably belongs to Fortax namadicus. Two left molars of a rum- 
inant, formerly in the Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, and entered on 
page 255 of Ealcoher’s catalogue of that collection, as being from the Narbada, 
* I am now uncertain of the generic distinctness of Ilippofotamodon. 
^ “ Animaux fossiles et Geologie de I’Attique,” Plate XLVII. 
3 pp. 178-180. 
■* “ Die Binder der Tertiar-Epoche, &c.,” p. 89, Plate VI, figs. 7 and 8. I hope Professor Eutimeyer will pardon me 
if I mention the inconvenience which arises from first mentioning the name of a new species in the midst of a paragraph , 
as he has done in this case. The description of every new species ought to have a distinct heading, hy which it at once 
catches the eye. In the case of Fortax namadicus not at first having time to read Professor Biitimeyer’s memoir 
through, the name of this species, from appearing in the middle of a sentence, did not catch my eye until I had time 
for a more leisurely perusal of the work. Dr. Gray uses the name Fortax ficta for the living species, which also 
occurs in a former part of this volume ; the Greek word Ilo'pra^, a young hovine animal, is, however, either masculine 
or feminine, and the former gender should have the preference. Hence Forta.x pictas, as given by Jerdon 
and F. namadicus, by Eutimeyer, are correct. 
