112—8 INDIAN TERTIARY AND POST-TERTIARY VERTEBRATA. 
of a large ruminant from the tlie Siwaliks of tlie Punjab were described and figured 
under the name of Cervus latidens^ with a proviso as to the possible incorrectness of 
the generic name. In the preface to the same volume/ the doubtfulness of tliis 
point was again mentioned. The more extended means of comparison now avail- 
able to the writer have pretty conclusively siiown that these specimens do not belong 
to the Gervidm. 
Upper dentition. — In plate XIII., fig. 12, of tlie present volume, there is repre- 
sented the external aspect of the left maxilla of a large ruminant collected by Mr. 
Theobald in the Siwaliks of the Punjab, containing the last two premolars and the 
three true molars, in an intermediate state of Avear. Part of the outer surface of 
is somewhat damaged, and the masticating surfaces of this and the succeeding 
tooth are so injured that they could not be figured ; but a figure (fig. 13j has been 
given of this aspect of the three preceding teeth. The true molars of this specimen 
correspond exactly in form with the type tooth represented in vol. I., pi. VIII., figs. 
7, 10, but are of someAvhat smaller size ; this difference cannot, however, in all 
probability, be regarded as of more than individual, or sexual, value. 
In no species of Cervidce which has come under the Avriter’s observation are the 
outer surfaces of the true molars so flat as in the specimens under consideration, or is 
the middle ^ costa ’ of each lobe so faintly developed ; neither are the hinder costm 
on the outer surface of pm. 4 so little prominent. These differences are so important 
as to indicate that the specimens do not belong to that family. 
From Bos and its allies the specimens are readily distinguished by their more 
‘ brachydont ’ character, the flatness of the outer surfaces of the molars, and the 
slight development of cement. 
Turning to the larger antelopes, the teeth of the maxilla under consider- 
ation agree so closely Avith those of Greets canna that there can be little or no 
doubt but that they indicate a closely allied form. The teeth of the 
specimen are about one-fourth smaller than those of a large male eland ; but the 
single tooth figured in the first volume is very nearly the size of the latter. The 
fossil teeth can only be distinguished from these 0 . cannet by the larger develojAinent 
of the accessory column in the median valley (Avhich is very minute in the living 
species) and by pm. 3 being relatively rather longer. The teeth of the kudu 
fStrepsicerosJ present a strong resemblance to those of the eland, but are distin- 
guished by their lower croAvns, tlie total absence of the accessory columns in the 
median valley, the smaller development of the anterior costa of the first lobe, and 
of the costse on tlie last two premolars. In all these respects they are unlike the 
fossil. All three agree in the smoothness of the enamel. The teeth of Alcela2}hus, 
Connochoetes, and Boselaphus are of a different type, and those of no other existing 
antelopes come so near to the fossil as do those of Oreas. 
Turning to other fossil forms, it may be stated that the present teeth are unlilte 
1 Page xvii. 
