56 INDIAN TERTIARY AND POST-TERTIARY VERTEBRATA. 
crescent, very similar to that occurring in the posterior crescent of the figured 
specimen. 
With the exception of the latter tooth, it has now been shown that none of 
the described teeth of Siwalik rhinoceroses known to me can he said with any 
degree of certainty to belong to any but the named species. 
Tibetan species. — In the “ Eauna Antiqua Sivalensis” 1 are figured certain 
limb-bones of a fossil rhinoceros from the Hundes plain in Tibet. In Royle’s 
“ Illustrations of the Botany, &c., of the Himalaya Mountains, ” 2 there is also 
figured a specifically undeterminable fragment of an upper molar of the same 
genus. It was formerly considered that these Hundes deposits were the equivalents 
of the Siwaliks, but in a recent paper by myself 3 it has been shown that they are 
probably of pleistocene age. The fossil rhinoceros obtained from- them does not 
therefore come within the scope of the present memoir. It may, however, be added 
that it would be a matter of the highest interest to obtain specimens of the skull 
or complete upper molars of the Hundes rhinoceros, in order to see whether it was 
most nearly related to the Siwalik or the living species. 
Remarks on the Pedigree oe the Indian Species of Rhinoceros. 
In his admirable work, entitled “Les Enchainements du Monde Animal,” 
to which reference has so frequently been made in the preceding pages, Professor 
Albert Gaudry has devoted a chapter to the pedigree of the Rhinocerotidce, both 
generically and specifically. It has there been shown that Acerotherium connects 
the more highly specialised genus Rhinoceros with the older generalised forms of 
Perissodactyla, and that traces of this connection are retained in the former genus by 
the small development of the nasals, and by the presence of the ‘ cingulum ’ on the 
lower molars. In the preceding pages of this volume it has likewise been shown that 
the molars of the large Indian unicorn rhinoceros, and those of similar pattern, belong 
to the most specialised and modern type, while those of Acerotdierium belong to the 
simplest type found in the family. 
With regard to the evolution of the species, Professor Gaudry has commented 
upon the resemblance of Rhinoceros pachygnathus of the Pikermi beds, to the 
living African forms, and both that writer and Professor Elower 4 have noticed, 
the points of connection between R. schleiermacheri of the European miocene and 
the living R. sumatrensis (and (?) lasiotis). In the following paragraphs a few 
remarks, more especially bearing on the evolution of the Indian forms, will be added. 
With regard to the unicorn species, very strong evidence has been adduced 
to show that R. javanicus is probably the descendant of R. sivalensis. In the 
case of R. indicus. it has been shown in the preface to the first volume that teeth 
obtained from the pleistocene deposits of the Narbada valley are practically 
indistinguishable from those of the living form, and the two have accord- 
1 PI. LXXVI, figs. 9, 10. 2 PI. HI, fig. 3, copied in fig. 9, of above-quoted plate in ‘ F. A. S. ’ 
1 R. G. S. I., Yol. XIV, p. 178. 4 Loe. cit., p. 456. 
