SIWALIK AND NARBADA PROBOSCIDIA. 
77—258 
sider that the tooth in question really belongs to Stegodon cliftii. Before I had 
obtained the cast of the tooth, I accepted the conclusions at which Professor Owen 
had arrived concerning it, and from the evidence of a single common character, 
referred the tooth of another Stegodon to the same species, although I now find that 
such identification was completely erroneous^ 
The Chinese tooth is a small oblong molar, narrower in front than behind, 
carrying four complete ridges, and an anterior talon, connected with the centre of 
tlie first ridge. The grinding surface of the crown is slightly convex antero- 
posteriorly, thereby showing that the tooth belongs to the upper jaw, while the 
lower border (in the figure) of the ridges being the most worn, show^s that it belongs 
to the left side ; its size shows that the tooth must he the second or penultimate 
milk-molar. All the ridges have been abraded by wear, and the inner portion of 
each ridge is the lowest and the most worn ; the dentine surfaces consequently 
present a pear-shaped form. The first ridge is nearly straight, but the succeeding 
ridges are somewhat bent, the inner halves being slightly in advance of the outer. 
There is a slight constriction at the point where the ridges are bent, probably repre- 
senting the mesial cleft which occurs in the molars of the Mastodons. Each ridge 
when unworn probably carried on its summit a considerable number of cusps or 
mammillge. The length of this tooth is 2-8 inches, and its greatest width 2T inches. 
Professor Ov^en in describing the tooth reckons the imperfect anterior ridge as a 
true ridge, and not as a large talon, as I have done. 
In referring the tooth to its proper species, Professor Owen proceeds to com- 
pare it with the teeth of Stegodon insignis, S. ganesa, and S. bombifrons. This com- 
parison is, however, unnecessary, because the Chinese tooth differs in to to from the 
molars of the three above-named species, in all of which the centre of the tooth, and 
not the outer side, is the highest point. The corresponding tooth of the first-named 
species differs also in having a greater number of ridges. 
The upper molars of Stegodon cliftii, on the other hand, as we have already seen, 
are characterized by having the outer sides higher than the inner, and by the den- 
tine surfaces of the ridges being wider internally than externally, as is shown in the 
figure of the first upper molar given by Clift.^ We thus see that in one very im- 
portant character the Chinese milk-molar agrees with the molars of S. cliftii, and 
with those of no other species of the genus. The latter molars, moreover, have a 
low ridge-formula, in which respect also they agree with the Chinese tooth. It now, 
therefore, remains to enquire on what grounds Professor Owen referred the Chinese 
tooth to a distinct species. The Professor appears to have overlooked the manner of 
wear of the ridges, and observes that the Chinese tootlP cannot belong to S. cliftii, 
because in the molars of that species there is “ no mark of a longitudinal line bisecting 
* Kec. Geol. Surv. of India, Vol. XI, p. 73. See also below. In a paper published in the IXth Volume of the 
Reeords (p. 49), when showing that 8. orientalis was founded on an insufficient character, I joined to it the name of 8. 
sinensis, whose specific distinctness does not depend on the same character. 
* loc. cit., PI. XXXIX, fig. 6. 
^ loc. cit., pp. 419-20. 
U 
