223— 42 
SIWALIK AND NAEBADA PBOBOSCIDIA. 
so than in Lartet’s (specimen). The intermediate tubercle is worn down as in his 
(specimen), and the posterior talon is only exhibited free on the inner side. 
“ The specimens are so exactly alike that they might have been taken for the 
same species, hut that the Indian is a little larger.”^ 
Now, a perusal of the foregoing note, will, I think, render it perfectly clear to 
the reader that the Indian tooth described therein is the corresponding tooth to our 
Sind specimen, and that consequently both teeth belong to the same species, which 
is probably M. pcmdionis of Balconer. With regard to the serial j)osition of this 
tooth we find that according to Balconer it agrees exactly with a tooth in the pos- 
session of Ed. Lartet, and considered as the last lower premolar of M. angustidens. 
It also agrees with- a similar tooth figured by von Meyer, in figures 12, 13 of plate 
V of Vol. XVII of the “ Palaeontographica,” as the second lower premolar of that 
species ; normally the number of premolars in Mastodons is two, and the last might 
therefore well he called the second. Von Meyer has, however, figured a specimen 
of a young u2Dper jaw of IL angustidens (plate III, fig. 1), which he describes as 
containing two premolars, which he calls first and second, and a third tooth which 
he calls the third milk-molar. There can he no question hut that the two first 
teeth in that sjDecimen are premolars, since they are less worn than the thuxl tooth. 
The posterior of the two premolars is a complex two-ridged tooth very like the 
second upper milk-molar of M. falconeri ; according to von Meyer’s classification 
this tooth must have succeeded a tooth (the second milk-molar) no more complex 
than itself, and a third premolar would have appeared above the third tooth in the 
jaw. As the second premolar in that jaw is as complex as the last premolar in the 
tetralophodont M. latidens, I cannot hut think that the third tooth in von Meyer’s 
jaw is really the first true molar, the jaw belonging to a very small animal. The 
second premolar will then he the last, and not the penultimate. If this view 
he admitted, the lower premolar, which he figures as the second or penultimate, 
will he the last, and indeed this must he so, because in a cast of a lower jaw of a 
young 31. angustidens in the Indian Museum, we find that the premolar succeeding 
the last milk-molar is a two-ridged tooth, much like Meyer’s specimen, while the 
preceding premolar has only a single column, and corresponds to the first (penul- 
timate) premolar in Meyer’s upper jaw. In this lower jaw the first true molar is 
no larger than the tooth which I consider the same in the uj)per jaw figured by 
Meyer. 
The tooth of M. angustidens, which is so like our specimen, is therefore the 
last lower premolar, and I accordingly class the figured specimen as the correspond- 
ing tooth of 31. pandionis. 
I have, however, another reason why this tooth should he classed as the last 
premolar, and not as the second milk-molar. The small s^oecimen represented in 
figure 3 of plate XXXVII, obtained by Mr. Eedden in Sind, from its narrow and 
elongated form, evidently belongs to the lower jaw, and seems to belong to a Trilo-^ 
* The italics and hrachets in the above note are my own. 
