84—50 INDIAN TERTIARY AND POST-TERTIARY VERTEBRATA. 
That jS. 'punjabiensis may be regarded as the ancestor of S', salvanius is highly 
probable, both from its occurrence in the same country, from its size, and from the 
circumstance that in its lower molars it presents evidence of being a somewhat more 
generalized form. 
The existence of the present pig, which was not larger than a hare, side by 
side with the larger race of the colossal S. titan {compare pi. VII., tig. 3, ivitli m. 3 of 
plate VIII., tig. 9), which rivalled the hippopotamus in size, is .very noteworthy, and 
indicates very clearly the luxuriance of the mammalian life of the Siwalik e^^och. 
Undetermined Specimens. 
Part of mandible from the Punjab. — In tigs. 4, 4a of plate VIII. of this volume 
there are given two views of the symphysial extremity of the left ramus of the 
mandible of a large jiig collected by Mr. Theobald in the Siwaliks of the village of 
Asnot, Punjab, which does not agree with any of the specimens described above. 
The fragment shows the broken canine, the bases of pm. 1 and pm. 2, and the complete 
pm. 3 and pm. 4 : the last tooth alone is slightly worn. The triangular section, and 
comparatively large size of the canine indicates that the specimen belonged to a 
male. The first premolar is nearly as long as the second, and is closely approximated 
both to the latter and to the canine, so that there is scarcely any diastema. The 
dimensions of the specimen are as follows, vis.: — 
Interval between canine and pm. 2 . . 0’86 Width of pni. 3 ..... 0 5 
,, ,, pm. 1 and pm. 2 . . 02 Height,, ,, ,, 0‘91 
Length of pm. 1 (alveolus) . . . 0'55 Length,, ,, ,, 0'81 
,, ,, ,, 2 (ditto) .... 0-61 Width,, ,, ,, ..... 0-76 
,,,,,, 3 0-92 Long diameter of canine .... 0‘85 
This jaw differs from the mandible of 8. titan figured in plate IX. by the large 
size of pm. 1 and by the shortness of the interval between that tooth and pm. 2 ; and 
from the mandibles of the same species represented in plates VII., fig. 4, and VIII., 
fig. 1, by the absence of the inner column {a) in pm. 4, which is constantly present in 
all the known jaws of that species. The two last premolars are very different from 
the corresponding teeth of the mandible figured in plate XI., fig. 1, under the name 
of 8 . giganteus ; this difference being especially marked in the case of pm. 3. These 
differences are so great that it may be pretty safely concluded that the specimen 
does not belong to either of the two species mentioned. The above-mentioned teeth 
are of the same general form as those of the female mandible of 8. falconeri 
represented in plate VII., fig. 1, but are of very much larger size : in that specimen 
pm. 1 is of relatively smaller size than in the present jaw, and is separated by a 
considerable interval from 2. In the male lower jaw of that species figured by 
Baker and Durand,^ the dimensions of the premolars are as follows, viz .: — 
First preinolar ..... 0’35X0’2 Third premolar ..... 0'62X0‘36 
Second ditto ..... 0'5 XO'27 Fourth ditto ..... 0'7 X0’51 
It appears from these dimensions that the teeth are considerably smaller than 
1 Op, cit., plate XXXV., fig. 3. 
