SIWALIK AND NARBADA BUNODONT SUINA. 
31—65 
The species to which the present specimens belong is certainly distinct from all existing 
forms of the genus ; and the only fossil species, mentioned in the list on j^ages 51-2 with 
which it can compare in size, and the structure of the molars, are S. antiqiius, S. 
crymantliius^ S. major ^ S.provincialis^ and clicerotherium. The first is apparently mainly 
known by two specimens of the mandible figured by Kaupd In one of these^ the canine 
is relatively small, and the specimen is consequently referred by Kauj) to a female : in 
the other,® which is regarded by Kaup as a male, the middle incisors are present ; 
then there is an empty alveolus on each side, behind which there is a slender 
upwardly-directed tooth which Kaup regards as i. :3, the canines of both sides being, 
on Kaup’s view, absent through malformation. In the present writer’s opinion it is 
far more probable that these up-curving teeth are really the canines (the second and 
third incisors having belonged to the empty alveoli), and that the jaw really belonged 
to a female ; the specimen referred by Kaup to a female belonging to a male. If 
this view be correct, S. antiqiius will be distinguished from the present species by its 
very small canines. It is also distinguished by the more horizontal direction of the 
lower incisors ; Avhile its pm. 4 is not wider than m. 1, and the inner column {a) of the 
former, although present, is not so strongly developed. The two species agree in 
the proportionate size of the true molars, and in having the united length of m. J. 
and m. 2 greater than that of m. 3. In S. erijmanthius and S. major, which, as already 
said, are regarded by Prof. Gaudry as being probably races of the same species, the 
form of the cranium is very different from that of the specimen represented in plate 
IX.: the European species are also distinguished by their small canines, by the small 
size, or absence, of the protuberance over the upper canine, and by the general 
absence of pm. 1 in both jaws. The cheek-teeth of the Eurojoean species present a 
striking resemblance to those of the present species ; the lower molars having the same 
simple structure, and the length of mH and m. 2 exceeding that of mTh (this character 
being most marked in S. major') : pm. 4 is, however, relatively narrower, and has but 
an indistinct trace of the accessory inner column (a) ; pm. 3 is a very narrow tooth, 
and shows no indications of having had three roots, which appears to have been the 
case in at least some male individuals of the present species. The last upper molar 
has no trace of the conspicuous cingulum of the tooth represented in plate VII., 
fig. 6 ; and in the European molars the valleys seem slightly less open, and the 
accessory columns less strictly confined to the median line. Both the figured 
specimens of the dentition of the European species are smaller than that represented 
in plate VII., fig. 4 ; and no individuals are known to have attained anything like 
the size of those to which the teeth represented in figs. 3 and 6 of the same plate 
belonged. The molars of 8. qirovincialis’^ present a certain resemblance to those 
of the present form, but are of considerably smaller size : the talon of m. 3 is, 
however, much narrower, and that tooth has not the cingulum on the inner side 
which is so conspicuously developed in the tooth figured in plate VII., fig. 6 : the last 
1 “Beitrage,” pt. IV., pis. IV. V. 2 IMcl, pi. IV., figs. 1, Ic. 3 Bid, pi. IV., fig. 2, pi. V. 
i Gervais, “ Zool. et Pal. Fran9.,” pi. HI., figs. 1-G, pi. XXII., fig. 8. 
I 
