293—112 
SIWALIK AND NARBADA PROBOSCIDIA. . 
This specimen shows that in its last upper molar, M. pandionis makes no approach to M. siva- 
lensis (Plate XLIV, fig. 1),. and in this respect differs from the lower molars, as I have noticed 
above (page 226), 
The penultimate molar of the new specimen is very important, as showing the difference of 
this tooth from the corresponding molar of M. falconeri (Plate XXXII, fig, I). The two teeth 
are in different conditions of wear, that of M. falconeri being the least worn, but they still permit of 
comparison. It will be observed that the molar of M. pandionis presents irregular, and not trefoil- 
shaped surfaces of dentine on its inner columns, and that its valleys are completely blocked. If the 
molar of M. falconeri were worn as much as that of M. pandionis, the dentine surfaces of the two 
first ridges, as well as those of the two columns in each ridge, would have been united, instead of 
remaining quite distinct : this is shown in the first upper true molar of M. falconeri, drawn in fig. 4 
of Plate XXXII. Again, the molar of M. pandionis must have had only a very small hind-talon, 
as the width of the united hind-ridge and talon is very little in excess of the second ridge : in 
M. falconeri, on the other hand, the width of the united hind-ridge and talon is equal to the width 
of the second ridge, plus half that of the first. Finally, the two teeth are broadly distinguished by 
the presence of cement in the one and its complete absence in the other. 
Mr. Theobald has also sent there detached specimens of the last upper true molar of M. pan- 
dionis, two of which agree with the figured specimen, while the third has a hind-talon, like the 
specimen referred to on page 218. 
Since the whole of the plates illustrating this memoir have been lithographed, a comparison of 
the figures of the • last lower molars of M. pandionis and M. sivalensis has shown me that I had 
overlooked certain differences between them. The right last lower molar of the former species drawn 
in fig. 4 of Plate XXXV will be seen to be convex externally and straight internally, the reverse 
being the ease with the corresponding tooth of M. sivalensis drawn in fig. 3 of Plate XLIV ; 
the latter tooth is also narrower than the former. The corresponding tooth of M. pandionis drawn 
in fig. 2 of Plate XXXIV, which succeeds an undoubted trilophodont tooth, appears in the engraving 
to be slightly concave on the outer side ; this is, however, an error on the part of the native artist; 
the outer border of the base of the crown is in reality perfectly straight, a rod laid along the base 
of the outer columns touching them all, whereas in M. sivalensis a similarly placed rod would only 
touch the two end columns. The last lower molar of M. pandionis has, therefore, its external 
surface either convex or straight, and in the former case, its hinder extremity inclines towards the 
inner side. In M. sivalensis, on the other hand, the last lower molar (as is shown in my figure and 
in the specimen with more ridges drawn in fig. 8 of Plate XXXVII of the “ Fauna Antiqua 
Sivalensis^'’) has its outer surface always concave, and its hinder extremity inclining towards the 
outer side. The specimen represented in fig. 2 of Plate XXXIV approaches in form to the tooth 
of M. sivalensis, but is widely distinguished by the presence of a large quantity of cement. Another 
specimen of the last lower molar of M. pandionis in the Indian Museum, is intermediate in character 
between the two figured specimens. We thus see that in this species there is a form with narrow, 
and another with broad molar teeth. 
Mastodon pykenaicus, Lartet. 
On page 212 1 stated that I could not find any description of the molars of this species. I have 
subsequently come across a figure of the last upper molar given by M. Gaudry.i It seems that that 
writer is inclined to consider M. pyrenaicus merely as a variety of M. angustidens. 
* “ Lea Enchainements du Monde Animal,” page 174. 
