287—106 
SIWALIK AND NAEBADA PEOBOSCIDIA. 
Indian. 
M. sivalensis 
Mio-Pliocene. 
Stegodon .... 
Mio-Pliocene and Pleistocene. 
Loxodon jplanifrons 
Mio-Pliocene. 
Hueleplias hysudrious 
Mio-Pliocene. 
Enelephas namadims . 
Pleistocene. 
Enelephas indicus 
Recent. 
Eueopean. 
. M. arvernensis. 
Upper Pliocene. 
. No European representative of the sub- 
genus. 
. No closely allied European species. 
Sub-genus Pliocene to Recent. 
. No closely allied European species. 
Sub-genus Pliocene to Reeent. 
. Enelephas antiquus. 
Pliocene. 
. Enelephas primigenins. 
Pleistocene. 
With regard to the age of the Siwaliks as indicated hy the Prohoscidia, we 
find that these deposits contain the genns Dinotlierium, which is characteristic of 
the upper Miocene of Europe. Of the Mastodons we find a mingling of Miocene 
and Pliocene forms in the Siwaliks. Stegodon is unknown in Europe, while Loxo- 
don and Enelephas do not occur before the Pliocene in Europe. 
Another fact, however, presents itself. It will he found from the distribution 
given in the text, that the whole of the species and genera of Indian Prohoscidia 
which are represented hy allied species, in the Miocene of Europe (with the possible 
exception of M. pandionis) are found only in the Siwaliks of Sind, the Western 
Punjab, and Perim Island. On the other hand, the species which are represented hy 
allied species in the post-Miocene of Europe are mainly found only to the east of 
the Punjab ; the only exception being M. sivalensis, which is also found somewhat 
to the west of the Jhelum, but not in Sind. 
These facts therefore, as far as the evidence of one group of fossils goes, would 
show that the whole mammaliferous beds of Northern India range from the upper 
Miocene well into the Pliocene period, and that the strata on the east of the Jhelum 
are mainly of Pliocene age, while those to the west of that river are partly, at all 
events, of Miocene age. 
These conclusions precisely agree with those which I have arrived at elsewhere, 
from other evidence, as to the age of the Siwaliks, and there is, therefore, a strong 
presumption of then? correctness.^ 
* The view that the Siwaliks are in great part of Pliocene age seems to be gradually gaining ground among 
palaeontologists. In a lecture on the “ Extinct Mammals of North America,” delivered by Professor Flower, before 
the Eoyal Institution, on March 10th, 1876, the author speaks of the Siwaliks as belonging to a transitional period 
between the Miocene and Pliocene (p. 12). Professor Riitimeyer in his memoir on “ Die Hinder der Tertiar-Epoche” 
(Abhand. der Schweiz Pal. Gesell., Vol. V, 1878, pp. 184 — 89,) adopts a similar view. Professor 0. C. Marsh in his 
paper on the “ History and Methods of Palaeontological Discovery” (Amer. Journ. of Sci. and Arts, p. 348, Novem_ 
her 1879), refers to the Siwaliks as being of Pliocene age. 
Professor Le Conte, however, in his recently published “Elements of Geology,” p. 498 (New York, 1879), totally 
ignores the partially Pliocene age of the Siwaliks, and classes them altogether as Miocene. He also ignores the nu- 
merous additions to the mammalian fauna of those rocks made hy myself, and noticed in the previous parts of this 
volume, and in the “ Records” of the last few years. In the last edition of Professor Nicholson’s “ Palaeontology” 
