10 
INDIAN TERTIARY AND POST-TERTIARY VERTEBRATA. 
from the structure of its upper cheek-teeth probably belongs to Aceratherium, the 
upper premolars are readily distinguished from those of the Biigti species by the 
absence of an ante-crochet, the larger crochet, the more prominent second costa, the 
less complete cingulum, and the larger tubercle at the entrance to the median valley. 
With regard to the American acerotheroids,^ tliere is considerable difficulty in 
being perfectly sure that none of them are specifically the same as the Bugti form, 
owing to the circumstance that many of them have been only described in a 
preliminary manner, and that in many cases where figures have been given they are 
on such a small scale as to be useless for the detection of minute points of difference. 
It is, however, imiDrobable that any one of the American forms should be specifically 
the same as an Indian species. Of those that have been figured the one that 
apparently comes nearest to the latter is A. fAphelojjsJ fossiger^ in which, as far as 
can be seen from the small figure, the U2:)per molars have a veiy small buttress, and 
a large ante-crochet : but apparently no tubercle at the entrance to the median valley. 
Specific distinctness and affinities. — As the result of the foregoing comparisons, it 
seems impossible to identify the Biigti rhinoceros with any described species ; and it 
accordingly ajDpears entitled to a separate specific name. The strong presumption 
that this species belonged to Aceratherium has been already indicated ; and it is 
proposed that it should be known as A. hlanfordi. The larger race may be 
distinguished as variety 7najus, and the smaller as variety minus. The remains of 
the former race indicate an animal somewhat exceeding in size full grown individuals 
of the typical Sumatran rhinoceros ; while those of the latter are not larger than the 
small race of that form, which was named U. nige7' by Gray. As there is such an 
amount of variation in the size of the Biigti species, it has been thought that nothing 
would be gained by giving measurements. In the absence of the cranium it is 
impossible to say whether A. hla^ifordi was really hornless, but such was not 
improbably the case; although it is necessary to assume that those forms of the 
genus which come nearest to Rhinoceros were most probably furnished with a 
rudimentary nasal horn.^ That the species was closely allied to A. incisivum^ there 
can be no reasonable doubt ; and there are also strong indications of its relation to 
the earlier races of the R. sivalensis type ; a relationship of which traces are retained 
in the milk-molars of the later race of that type. It is, moreover, not impossible 
that the pleistocene R. deccanensis may have been a descendant from the same stock 
as A. hla^ifordi, since there is such a remarkable resemblance in the structure of their 
upper premolars. It is also conceivable that the small undetermined skull in the 
British Museum from the upper Siwaliks alluded to on page 4, may indicate a 
species connecting A. hla^ifordi with R. decca^ie^isis, since there is a great similarity in 
the structure of their molars. The suppression of the buttress of the upper molars 
1 Supra, vol. II., pp. 20, 21. 2 Cope, ‘ Amer. Nat.,’ Dec., 1879, fig. 3, p. 771«. 
3 The -writer is conviaced that it is almost or quite impossible to dra-w any real distinction between Accra and 
Mhinoeeros. 
4 This species occurs in the Eppelsheim beds ; and possibly in those of Pikermi and Mont Leberon. 
