SIWALXK CAMELOPARDALIS. 
39—137 
Antilocapra and all cavicorn ruminants on the other hand, the enamel of the molars 
is nearly smooth, and their c lobes ’ are always set in the same antero-posterior line 
so as never to overlap. 
The above points appear to me to indicate a very intimate connection between 
the sivatheroids and the giraffe, and thus with the deer. Dr. Murie’s main objec- 
tion against the connection of the sivathere with the giraffe appears to be the length 
of limb of the former, but this we have shown to be bridged over by intermediate 
forms. 
In regard to the deer Dr. Murie remarks : “ The Sivatherium, again, is no deer, 
inasmuch as the fossil skull shows no supra or ant-orbital [lachrymal] fissures.” 
Now, in Hy daspi t fieri um (as is well shown in the figure of the skull in the first 
volume) there is a very large lachrymal fissure, as in the deer and the giraffe. One 
of the allies of Sivatherium is, therefore, in this respect, very closely related to the 
latter animals , and distinguished from all other ruminants. Dr. Murie then remarks 
that the back and base of the skull and the form of the lower jaw do show certain 
cervine affinities. The horns appear to me to be as near to the antlers of the deer 
as to the horns of the antelopes. 
Einally, with the evidence at present before us, it appears to me, as stated in 
the early part of this memoir, to be necessary to group the sivathere and its allies 
in the same family as the giraffe, and that this family should occupy the next place 
to that of the Cervidse, the elk and the vishnuthere being probably the two genera 
which most closely allied the members of the two families. 
Distribution. — Remains of the Sivatherium have hitherto been only obtained 
from the Siwaliks of the Sub-Himalayan ranges, being extremely common in the 
neighbourhood of the Jamna valley, and becoming gradually rarer as we advance 
to the north-west, and being unknown beyond the Jlielum river. 
Undetermined Teeth. 
On pages 88 and 89 of my oft-quoted notice in the eleventh volume of the 
e ‘ Records ” a fragment of a lower jaw was described containing two teeth, which 
were classed as the second and third (penultimate) premolars. The larger of these 
teeth is almost precisely similar in form to the third lower milk-molar provisionally 
assigned to Hydaspitherium megacephalum , but is of considerably larger size. Erom 
this similarity in form it would at first appear that these teeth must be milk-molars, 
but the anterior lower milk-molars of the giraffe so much resemble the milk-molars 
that even this identification would be rash. 
If these teeth be milk-molars, it would seem that they do not belong either to 
Sivatherium or to Hydaspitherium , since we have referred other milk-molars to those 
forms. They are certainly not the premolars of either of those genera, which are 
known. They are too large to belong to Camelopardalis. If they be premolars, 
they might possibly belong to Vislmutherium or Bramatherium , though they would 
seem to be too large to be the milk-molars of those forms. The length of the 
