4 EAUNA OE THE INDIAN ELHVIATILE DEPOSITS. 
maxilla. The mandible is materially distorted, the right ramus especially having 
been forced over to the left side very considerably, and the symphysis having been 
twisted so that the left side of the symphysial prolongation is fully half an inch 
higher in level than the right. The right ramus is also rather broken at the lower 
edge about the middle of its length. 
The upper and outer part of the left maxilla above the molar series is much 
crushed out of shape, so much so that the jugal arch, instead of being parallel to 
the side of the skull, has been turned over outwards, so that at present it has a 
position nearly at right angles to its normal one. 
The plane of the dental series of the maxilla has also been considerably more 
curved than normal, the result being that the molars and premolars, instead of being 
in close apposition to each other as in all other species of Ehinoceros, are divided by 
spaces. This is especially observable between premolars 2 and 3 and molars 1 and 
2 and 2 and 3. The bones appear to have been in a rather soft state when thus 
affected, else they must have been far more extensively fractm’ed. 
On comparison with all the other described species of Ehinoceros, both living 
and fossil, the head discovered at Chickdowlee shows such marked differences that 
it cannot be assigned to any one of them, and deserves, therefore, to be considered 
as a distinct and hitherto undescribed species. As such I propose to call it Rli. 
-Deccanensis ; and as the region in which it was found belongs distinctly to the 
Deccan in the older and fuller meaning of the name, and most of the other Asiatic 
Ehinoceroses, both recent and fossil, have been distinguished by geographical 
specific names, the one now proposed appears quite suitable. 
The head only of Hli. Deccanensis being known, comparisons could only be 
instituted with corresponding parts of specimens of other species. Eight distinct 
points of character came specially under comparison, and they were in order of 
importance — 
1. — The proportional height of the crowns of the teeth. 
3. — The form of the symphysis of the mandible. 
3. — The presence or absence of incisor teeth and their size. 
4. — The special structure of the upper molar series. 
5. — The form of the bones of the periotic region. 
6. — The form and proportions of the zygomatic arch. 
7 • — The relative size as compared with that of other species. 
8. — The deciduous character of premolar 1. 
In carrying out the comparison of the remains of this Ehinoceros with those 
of other species, I have followed the methods adopted by the late Dr. Ealconer and 
by Mr. Boyd Dawkins, e. r. s.,* and for the descriptive portion and plates have 
adopted the terms (with two exceptions) and indicative letters employed by the 
latter palaeontologist in his several very able papers on the dentition of the Ehino- 
cerotes found fossil in Great Britain. 
* See Falconer’s Palaeontological Memoirs and Mr. Boyd Dawkins’ papers in the Natural History Review, 1863 
and 1864, and Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, Vol. XXIII, 1867, and Vol, XXIV, 1868. 
