193—12 
SIWALIK AND NAEBADA PROBOSCIDIA. 
tions wliich will be detailed below, these teeth have been referred to Dinotherium 
indicum of Falconer, the history of which species has already been referred to when 
treating of the preceding species of the genus. 
Second upper true molar. — The first of the two specimens in question is the 
half of an upper molar represented in fig. 1 of Plate XXXI. This specimen was 
sent to the Indian Museum among a small collection of Punjab, and other North 
Indian fossils made by the late Dr. Verchere, and appears to have been obtained 
from the Siwaliks of Dehra Ghazi Khan, on the north-west frontier. This speci- 
men, together with another tooth described below, has been already shortly noticed 
by me in the “ Records. The fragment consists of the hinder ridge of the 
second left upper true molar. The position of the tooth is determined by there 
being a disc of pressure on the remaining ridge, indicating the presence of another 
tooth on this side, and by the width of the ridge being equal to that of the valley, 
in place of being narrower, which it would be were the tooth the third true molar. 
The concave side of the ridge shows that this is the hinder side of the tooth, and 
the broken tubercle on the lower border of the figure shows that this border is the 
inner side of the tooth. The great general size and width of the ridge shows 
that the tooth cannot be the first true molar. The one remaining ridge is but 
slightly abraded by detrition, the enamel not having been perforated ; the plane of 
wear slopes towards the anterior side of the specimen. 
Since the corresponding molar of the smaller D. pentapotamice has already been 
figured on Plate IX, fig. 3, and described on page 73 of an earlier part of the present 
volume,^ it will be simpler to commence by comparing these two teeth together at 
once, instead of describing the larger tooth separately. 
Placing the two figures side by side, it wdll at once be seen that the tooth of 
D. indicum is widely distinguished from that of D . pentapotamice- by its greatly supe- 
rior size. In addition to this distinction, however, tliere are points of difference in 
the form of the two teeth, which afford more certain grounds for the specific dis- 
tinctness of the two animals to which they belonged. It wdU be observed that the 
single ridge of the larger tooth is considerably straighter, and has a much slighter 
cavity on the posterior side, than has the corresponding hinder ridge of the smaller 
tooth. Again, the comparatively flat hinder surface of the larger tooth is entirely un- 
interrupted by ridges or projections, whereas the corresponding surface of the smaller 
tooth has a very distinct curved ledge, or cingulum near its base, and an imperfect 
ridge somewhat higher up. In the transverse valleys of the two teeth, another im- 
portant distinetion presents itseff ; in the smaller tooth the outer extremity of that 
valley is blocked by a low wall, which is the highest part in the whole valley ; in 
the larger tooth, on the other hand, the valley is perfectly open externally, the 
middle point of the valley being the highest, from which point it slopes away rapidly 
on either side. In both the larger and smaller teeth there is a very large rounded 
’ Eec. Geol. Surv. of India, Vol. XII, p. 42. 
? “ Molar Teeth and other Remains of Mammalia” (volume paging ). 
