126—28 INDIAN TERTIARY AND POST-TERTIARY YERTEBRATA. 
Sixth cervical . — A sixth cervical vertebra of a ruminant is described by Dr. 
Ealconer 1 as that of a small sivathere. This vertebra is, however, narrower than the 
sixth cervical of Sivatherium (plate XII), and is distinguished by a distinct liypapo- 
physial keel. It may belong to the present species. 
The dimensions of the two specimens are given below : — 
Hydaspitherium. 
Sivatherium. 
Length of superior surface of centrum ....... 
41 
4'3 
Width between inferior lamellae of transverse processes ..... 
3-02 
33 
Vertical diameter of condyle ......... 
32 
33 
Transverse „ „ 
23 
2-6 
The foregoing comparisons indicate that the liydaspithere was provided with 
a neck somewhat longer than that of the sivathere. 
Distribution. — With the exception of the sixth cervical vertebra described 
above, which seems to have come from the true Siwalik hills, remains of the present 
species have only been obtained from the Siwaliks of the Punjab, between the 
Jhelam and Indus rivers. 
Summary. — The examination of all the remains in the Indian Museum, which 
can be referred to Hydaspitherium megacephalum indicates that, as far as regards 
its length of limb, it was further removed from the sivathere than is the hella- 
dothere ; the structure of its horns, however, places it nearer to the former. In the 
length of its neck it makes one step from the same in the direction of the vish- 
nuthere and the giraffe; to the latter of which it is allied by the presence of 
a lachrymal vacuity. 
Abolition of H. leptognathus. — The provisional reference of the mandible 
described above to the present species renders it necessary that the species known 
as H. leptognathus should be withdrawn. 
Species: 2. Hydaspitherium grande, Nobis. 
History. — This species was founded upon the evidence of an upper molar of a 
sivatheriod, obtained by Mr. Theobald in the Siwaliks of the Punjab, and briefly 
described in the “Records” for 1878 2 . The tooth differed from the molars of all 
other sivatheriods, but seemed to be nearest to those of H. megacephalum. It is, 
however, quite possible that this reference, which is merely provisional, should turn 
out incorrect, and that the tooth must be referred to a new genus. The provisional 
reference to Hydaspitherium is intended to obviate the creation of a new genus 
without adequate cause. In the same notice 3 a ramus of a mandible was pro- 
1 “ Cat. Mus., A. S. B.,” No. 603 ; not mentioned in “ Pal. Mem.” Ind. Mus., No. B. 382. 
2 “ Vol. XT, p, 93. 
» Loc. at. 
