SIWALIK SELENODONT SUINA, ETC. 
27—168 
happens that the specimen has been turned upside down, so that to see the tooth 
in its natural position the plate must likewise be reversed. The specimen is complete 
with the exception of the extremities of the ‘fangs,’ and is a true molar (possibly 
the last) belonging to the left side : the tips of the columns are but slightly abraded 
by wear. The crown carries four crescentoid columns on the masticating surface, 
relatively higher than those of Merycopotamus. The general form of these columns is 
much the same in the two genera, with the important exceptions that in the postero- 
external column {right upper angle of figure ) the outer surface is simply concave without 
any median ridge, while the corresponding surface of the antero-external column 
( left upper angle of figure') has the median ridge, though present, much more faintly 
developed than in Merycopotamus. The loop between the two external columns is 
much more developed than in that genus, projecting beyond the outer border of the 
crown. The antero-internal column ( left lower angle of figure) is greatly developed 
at its anterior, and incompletely at its posterior side. As in Merycopotamus there is a 
distinct \ cingulum ’ on three, sides of the base of the crown. The size of the tooth 
is about the same as that of large individuals of the latter genus ; its dimensions are 
as follows : vis. — length, T13 inches; breadth, IT inches ; height, 081 inch. 
The tooth is distinguished from the molars of Ghoeromeryx by the oblique 
direction of the external surfaces of the outer columns, by the incompleteness of the 
1 crescents ’ of the inner columns, and by the form of the loop connecting the outer 
columns. The resemblance between the tooth and the molars of Merycopotamus and 
Ghoeromeryx is, however, sufficiently strong to render it probable that it belongs to 
the same family. It does not appear to come as near to the molars of any other 
genus as to those of Ghoeromeryx and Merycopotamus , from which, however, it is most 
markedly distinct. In the points in which it differs from the latter genus it 
approximates to the molars of the Anoplotheridce and the true ruminants. It has, 
indeed, a very marked superficial resemblance to the upper molars of Anoplotlierium 
commune , especially noticeable in the incompleteness of the crescent formed by the 
hist inner column, which thus makes an approach to the separation of this column 
into two distinct portions, as is the case in Anoplotlierium. The molar of Kemimeryx 
is, however, readily distinguished from that of Anoplotlierium by the absence of the 
isolated pillar on the hinder side of the first inner column, as well as by the greater 
lateral curvature and obliquity of the external surfaces of the outer columns, and 
by the incompleteness of the horse-shoe-like connecting loop. 
Lower molar. — In figure 1 of plate XXIII. there is represented a nearly complete 
left lower molar, from the lower Manchhar rocks, evidently belonging to some species 
of selenodont pig, and from its size provisionally referred to the present species : it 
is the specimen alluded to on page 79 of the Xlth volume of the “ Records.” The 
tooth is in a very early stage of wear, the outer columns being scarcely touched : the 
two hinder columns are somewhat broken. It is distinguished from the lower molars 
of Merycopotamus by the crown being lower, by the transverse valley being nearly 
