SIWALIK AND NARBADA PllOBOSCIDIA. 
7—188 
2'75 indies, and its greatest width 2"4 inches. As far, therefore, as the matter of 
size goes, the two specimens may certainly he referred to the same species, because 
in B. gigantemn the upper molars are considerably larger than the lower. The 
ridges of the upper molar are more curved than those of the lower, but that is 
always the case in the teeth of this genus. The upper molar has not the connect- 
ing longitudinal bridges which are found in the lower molar, but this, as we shall 
subsequently see, appears to be a variable character, and I think we may therefore 
safely say that the specimen represented in Plate XXIX, fig. 3, belongs to B. 
pentapotamicG. 
Now, with regard to the other two specimens : if we take the last tooth of tbe 
specimen represented in fig. 1 of Plate XXIX and compare it with the homologous 
tooth of the specimen represented in Plate XXX, we shall, I think, certainly 
arrive at the conclusion that both these teeth belong to one and the same species ; 
the only difference between them being that the latter tooth is very slightly the 
larger of the two. 
The penultimate molars of the two jaws are distinguished, as we have already 
seen, by the presence of a hind talon, and an imperfect longitudinal ridge in the 
transverse valley of the one, and by their absence in the other. In consequence of 
the absence of this talon in the specimen represented in Plate XXX, this tooth is 
half-an-inch shorter than the homologous tooth in the other specimen ; both, 
however, have precisely the same width. The complete absence of the hind talon in 
the one tooth may not improbably be explained by a greater pressure exerted on it 
by the succeeding tooth ; the longitudinal bridge, as I have already said, I do not 
consider to be a character of rnuch specific value ; and I think that we^ may say that 
the lower jaws represented in Plate XXX and in fig. I of Plate XXIX belong to 
the same species ; it therefore only remains for us to see whether they belong to 
the same species as the specimen represented in fig. 3 of the latter plate, or, in 
other words, to B. pe^itapotamics, to which I have referred that specimen. 
On referring to the measurements of the three specimens given in the table 
above, it will be seen that the last premolar and the first true molar of the speci- 
men represented in Plate XXX are slightly smaller than the homologous teeth 
of the specimen represented in fig. 3 of Plate XXIX ; it will, moreover, be ob- 
served from the figures, that there is a slight difference in the relative develop- 
ment of the longitudinal bridges in the teeth of the two specimens. Beyond this 
difference in the development of the longitudinal bridge, and the slight difference 
in size, I can find no points of distinction between the teeth of the two specimens. 
With regard to the development of the longitudinal bridge, we have already seen 
that it varies in the two specimens of the two last molars represented in the accom- 
panying plates, which certainly belong to the same species, and if we refer to the 
figures of the molars of Bmotlierium giganteum given in the third volume of the 
atlas of De Blainville’s “ Osteographie,” or in Kaup’s memoirs, we shall find that in 
the specimens marked B. cuvieri and B. intermedium (these pseudo-species being 
