92—58 INDIAN TERTIARY AND POST-TERTIARY VERTEBRATA. 
came to the conclusion that all the above-mentioned names were really synonymous ; 
and adopted the name Hyotheriiim, which has the priority. The same view was 
subsequently adopted by Peters^ ; but Prof. Gaudry^ retains the two genera 
Byotlierium and Palceochoeriis ; although admitting that there is practically no 
distinction between them.® The former view will be adopted in this memoir. 
Number of species . — There is such utter confusion in the species of the genus 
that without an actual comparison of all the types it is imjDOssible to arrive at any 
satisfactory conclusion ; and the following list of the non-Indian forms must be 
regarded as purely provisional : the most doubtful species are indicated by an 
asterisk. 
*1. Hyothekium medium, H. Meyer.^ Miocene, Germany. 
An insufficiently described species, whose claim to distinction is considered very doubtful 
by Peters.’’ 
2. Hyothekium meissneri, H. Meyer.® Miocene, Germany. 
Chceropotamus meissnefi, Meyer'^ (1834). Siis meissneri, Kaup.s 
A species nearly equal in size to H. typus (with which it is identified by Peters® ) ; but 
apparently distinguished by its more elongated upper true molars, in which the 
cusps are less distinct than in that species. 1 ® The lower jaw figured by Gervaisi^ 
under the name of Chceromorus simplex, and referred by Peters to the present species, 
is apparently distinct from the type mandible of H. meissneri. If H. meissneri and 
H. typus are really synonymous the former name has the priority.^® 
*3. Hyothekium minimum^® (Cuv.). Miocene, France. 
Sus lepiodon, Pom. {teste Gastaldi). 
(.?) H. cuvieri, Pet. Anthracotherium minimum, Cuv. 
This species is referred to Hyotherium on the authority of Gervais,!"* who figured a 
lower jaw belonging to an animal rather larger than a peccary : the molars seem to 
have a tendency to a selenodont structure which is wanting in other forms. It 
appears that Peters^^ confused this ?,Y>ec\&s with Anthi'acotherium minutu 7 n, Blain.^®; 
since when mentioning that name he refers to Gervais’ figure of H. (A.) minimum. 
In the mandible figured by Gastaldi the columns appear more conical. 
1 ‘Denschr. k. Ak. Wiss.,’ vol. XXIX., p. 195, et. stg., 1869. 2 “ Les Enchainemeiits— Mam. Tert.,” p. 71. 
3 It is somewhat difficult to ascertain Dr. Filhol’s views : in one memoir (‘Ann. Sci. Geol.,’ vol. XI.) he apparently 
uses the name Hyotherium in its widest sense ; hut in another (“ Phosphorites du Quercy ”) he employs both Palceochxrus and 
ChcBromorus. 
* ‘N. Jahrh.,’ 1841, p. 104. 5 Op. cit., p. 196. 6 ‘ Jahrb. Nassau Ver. Nat.,’ vol. VI., p. 116, pi. IV. (1850). 
7 “ Georgensmiind,” p. 51. 8 “ Beitr'age,” pt. IV., pi. VI. 9 Op. cit. 
10 The specimens figured by Kaup have distinct columns. n “ Zool. et Pal. Franq.,’ 2nd ed., pi. XXXIII., fig. 5. 
12 Gervais [op. cit., p. 182) suggested the possibility of the unity of these two forms. 
13 Vide Gastaldi, ‘Mem. Ac. Real. Torino,’ ser. 2, vol. XIX., p. 22, pi. VIII., fig. 38. 
14 “Zool. et Pal. Franq.,” 2nd ed., p. 187, pi. XXXIII., fig. 6. 
15 Op. cit., pp. 196, 214. Peters objects to the name minutum, and substitutes cuvieri ; hut it would seem that the latter 
name is really a synonym of minimum. 
16 Referred in vol. II. of the present work (p. 149, where it is wrongly authenticated as Cuv.) to Amphih agultts or 
Hichodon'. it is identified by Dr. Filhol [“Mam. Foss, de Bonzon," [reprint] p. 240) with Gelocus communis, which is the 
same as Amplatragulus communis : the same view having been previously taken by Gastaldi [op. cit., p. 23). 
