SIWALIK CAMELOPARD ALIDiE. 
21—119 
in the notice in the “ Records,” to which reference has already been made. In 
these two notices it was shown that these teeth are distinguished from the upper 
molars of Sivatlierium by their inferior size, by the finer texture of their outer 
surface, by the absence of any plication of the enamel of the central pits, and 
by the lesser development of the ‘ costae ’ on the external surface of the 4 lobes.* 
It was further shown that there was a certain amount of variability in the latter 
character. 
In figure 3 of plate XVIII of this volume there are represented two associated 
upper molars of a large ruminant of slightly larger size than the above-mentioned 
molars of U. megacephalum noticed in the “ Records.” These two teeth were obtained 
in association with the corresponding teeth of the opposite side, by Mr. Theobald 
in the Siwaliks of the Punjab, and are in an intermediate condition of wear. They 
are implanted in the hinder portion of the left maxilla, and are thus shown to be the 
second and third true molars. 
These teeth, from having been found in the district where the remains of Hy- 
daspitherium are so common, and also from their resemblance in form to the teeth 
in the above-mentioned skull of H. megacephalum, are referred to that species. 
Their dimensions are given in the first column of the following table, while in the 
second are given those of a detached specimen of smaller size : — 
Length of second true molar l - 95 — ... 
Width „ „ 1-9 — ... 
Length of third „ 1'85 — 1'6 
‘ Width „ „ 1-8 — 1-55 
The teeth in the figured skull are intermediate in size between these two 
extremes, and it would thus seem that no specific distinctions can be drawn merely 
from variations in the size of the upper molars. The smaller teeth are about the 
size of the molars of Bramatherium, while the figured specimens are nearly equal 
in size to the molars of small-sized individuals of Sivatherium. 
In the figured teeth there is a trace of a 4 cingulum ’ on the inner 4 crescents,’ 
which appears liable to a certain degree of variation in the different specimens. 
Besides being generally smaller, the upper molars of Hydaspitherium mega- 
cephalum are at once distinguished from those of Sivatherium by the much less 
development of the c costae ’ on the outer surfaces of the e lobes ’ — a distinction so 
well marked that there is never any difficulty in determining isolated specimens. 
The upper molars of Vishnutherium are distinguished by the almost complete 
absence of any median 4 costae ’ on the outer surface of the ‘ lobes,’ and by the pre- 
sence of the distinct 4 cingulum.’ 
“When we come to Bramatherium , on the other hand, we find a much closer 
resemblance between its upper molars and those of the present species, and it is 
pretty certain that if the skulls of the two genera were unknown, the teeth would 
be referred to the same genus, if not to the same species ; indeed, it is quite possible 
that some of the teeth in the Indian Museum from the Punjab classed as Hydaspi - 
