INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
xiii. 
List of ’ and remarks on , Siwalik Carnivora. — The list of Siwalik Carnivora, as 
described in the concluding part of this volume, comprehends 33 species ; most of 
which are based on fairly sufficient remains. These may be tabulated as follows, vis.: 
f Mellivora sivalensis (F. and C.) 
^ I ,, punjabiensio, Lyd. 
» Mellivorodon palseindicus, Lyd. 
§ I Lutra palseindica, F. and C. 
8 | ,, bathygnathus, Lyd. 
1- ,, sivalensis (F. and C.) 
C Ursus theobaldi, Lyd. 
Hysenarctos sivalensis, F. and C. 
q ,, punjabiensis, Lyd. 
~. "S ,, palseindicus, Lyd. 
8 Amphicyon palseindicus, Lyd. 
Canis curvipalatus, Bose. 
,, cautleyi, Bose. 
^ , ,, sp. non. det. 
| | Viverra bakeri, Bose. 
| (. ,, durandi, Lyd. 
('"Hyaena felina, Bose. 
U. ,, ■ colvini, Lyd. 
a J ,, macrostoma, Lyd. 
S; 1 ,, sivalensis, Bose. 
S I 
| ,, sp. non. det. 
l-Lepthysena sivalensis, Lyd. 
pZEluropsis annectans, Lyd. 
iElurogale sivalensis, Lyd. 
Felis cristata, F. and 0. 
,, (? Cynselurus) brachygnathus, Lyd. 
§ , , sp. (allied to F. pardus) 
§* ^ ,, sp. (allied to F. lynx ) 
,, subhimalayana, Bronn. 
,, (?) sp. non. det. 
Machserodus sivalensis, (F. and C.) 
L ,, palseindicus, Bose. 
Hycenodontida — Hysenodon indicus, Lyd. 
The most striking feature in this list is the strange mingling of essentially modern 
forms, with those generally characteristic of the older tertiaries ; this being a feature 
noticeable in all the orders of Siwalik Mammalia, but perhaps in none so strongly as 
in the present instance. Thus by the side of ratels, bears, jackals, and civets, some 
of which are scarcely distinguishable from existing species, there occur essentially 
primitive forms like Hycenodon (or a closely allied genus), Amphicyon , Lepthycena , and 
JElurogale. Although this feature is probably exaggerated by the mingling of 
genera peculiar to different horizons, yet from the mode of occurrence of many of 
the forms it must be in the main true ; and, in view of the invertebrate evidence 
afforded by the associated deposits in Sind, admits of but one reasonable explanation : — 
namely, the survival in the Indian and African areas of old types long after they 
had disappeared from other parts of the world. 1 This view fully accords with all 
the facts, and is the only one which brings the condition of the ancient fauna of 
India into harmony with that of the present day. 
Equally noteworthy is the apparently contemporaneous existence of specialized 
and generalized forms of the same genus ; especially well shown in the hyaenas. 
The same group also shows the remarkable fact that the solitary existing Indian 
hyaena is of a less specialized type than some of the extinct species ; probably 
indicating, as seems to have been the case with the machaerodonts, that a high degree 
of specialization was not invariably advantageous ; and thereby conducive to the life 
of a species. 
The Siwalik carnivorous fauna fills up many gaps in the chain of relationship ; 
the points most strongly brought out being the intimate connection between the bears 
and the dogs ; the viverroids and the hyaenas ; and the cats and the hyaenas. There 
l This explanation was proposed by Mr. W. T. Blanford (“ Manual of Geology of India,” pt. I., p. LXX.) 
