SIWALIK CAMELOPARD ALID Ah 
9—107 
Taking all the teeth noticed above together, it is apparent that there is a certain 
amount of variability in the matter both of size and structure in the upper molars of 
the Siwalik giraffe, and that as a series they are, as remarked bj Messrs. Falconer and 
Cautley, “ all but indistinguishable from those of the Nubian giraffe; ’* and if we 
had no remains but the upper molar teeth, it is very doubtful whether any distinction 
could be drawn between the living and the fossil forms. 
Mandible and lower molars .—* In Messrs. Falconer and Cautley’s original notice , 
the described teeth of the lower jaw were a last lower molar of the left side \ and the 
last premolar of the same side 2 . The specimen described by myself in the first 
volume of this series 3 showed the last premolar and the first and second true molars. 
In my notice in the “ Records ” 4 two specimens of the last lower molar were noticed 
and considered to belong to distinct species. Since that notice was written the right 
ramus of the mandible represented in figure 5 of plate XYI of this memoir has been 
obtained by Mr. Theobald 5 , and seems to invalidate the distinctions drawn between 
the foregoing specimens ; an inference confirmed by another specimen of the last 
lower molar lately acquired by the Indian Museum. We thus now have six speci- 
mens of the mandible of Siwalik giraffes, showing among them five specimens of the 
last lower true molar, and two specimens of both the second and first true molars and 
of the last premolar. In the following table the dimensions of all these five speci- 
mens, together with the corresponding dimensions of the mandible of the living 
giraffe, are given ; the specimens in the Indian Museum are indicated by their 
respective numbers in the catalogue. 
? Ibid., fig. 8. 
J P. 58. 
* Vol. XT, p. 86. 
s This specimen w$s obtained in the same district of the Punjab as the upper molars represented in figures 1 and 2 
of the same plate, though at a later period. Prom the identity in the mineral condition of the two specimens, and from 
their condition of wear, I am strongly inclined to think that both upper and lower jaws belonged to the same individual. 
