SIWALIK RHINOCEROTIHiE. 
29 
Himalayan tertiary beds, Hr. Ealconer informs me that there are six incisors in both 
jaws ; the typical number was therefore retained in this ancient species as in the con- 
temporary Hippopotamus of the same formations.” It will be seen from this state- 
ment that no species was named in which the peculiarity was said to occur. The late 
Hr. Murchison (the editor of the “ Palaeontological Memoirs”), however, goes on to 
observe that from the evidence of certain lower jaws figured in the “ Eauna Antiqua 
Sivalensis ” under the names of R. palceindicus and R. platyrhinus, the peculiarity 
could not occur in either of those species, and accordingly says that R. sivalensis 
must be the species in which six incisors were developed. Hr. Murchison, however, 
entirely omits to mention that in the “ Eauna Antiqua Sivalensis ” there is figured a 
third form of lower jaw under the name of R. sivalensis in which there are no incisors 
at all. 1 As no complete set of the upper incisors of any of the species of the Siwalik 
rhinoceroses is known, there is, as I have already shown in the first volume of this 
series, 2 no evidence at all to show that any of the Siwalik species of rhinoceros pre- 
sented any abnormality in their dentition. 3 The next notice of the species, of any 
importance, occurs in the previous volume of this series, where some molar teeth 
are described and figured, and where mention is made in the subsequently published 
preface of some later notices by other writers. In that preface 4 mention is made of 
the establishment of a new genus (. Zalabis ), for the reception of R. sivalensis , by 
Professor Cope ; and it was then stated that the new genus would not stand, and it 
might have been added that there were no more grounds for referring Rhinoceros 
sivalensis to it than any other Siwalik representatives of the family, the original 
statements as to the alleged hexaprododont character of one species having been made 
to apply to R. sivalensis on false premises. 5 A notice by the late Professor Brandt, 
in which he proposed to unite this species and the next with R. indicus, has been 
already fully discussed in the preface to the first volume of this work. 
Object of present notice. — In the present volume certain teeth, obtained since 
the notice in the first volume was written, and illustrating more fully the dentition 
of the species, have been figured. A re-determination of the lower jaw probably 
belonging to this species has also been made, and an imperfect skull, provisionally 
referred to a variety of this species, is also noticed. 
Renultimate upper true molar. — On page 26 of the first volume of this work 
a fine specimen of the, probably, penultimate upper true molar of this species was 
described ; the same specimen was also figured in plate Y, fig. 5. In that descrip- 
tion, however, it was not stated on what grounds the specimen was referred to 
1 PI. LXXIV, fig. 6. 2 Page 53. 
3 It is impossible now to say on what grounds this statement of Falconer’s rested, but it is quite clear from a 
passage in bis writings said to have been written in 1839 (Pal. Mem. vol. I, p. 180) that at that time, at all events, 
be considered that no species of rhinoceros bad tbe full complement of mammalian incisors. 
4 PP- ix > xii- 
5 Professor Gaudry (“ Les Encbainements du Monde Animal, etc.,” p. 50) bas likewise followed tbe false lead, and 
says “ D’apres Falconer, le Rhinoceros sivalensis de l’Xnde avait le devant de sa macboire inferieure arme de trois 
paires de dents.” 
