173—32 INDIAN TERTIARY AND POST-TERTIARY YERTEBRATA. 
Section: RUMINANTIA. 
? Family. — PAL2E0MER YCIDAE. 
Genus : Propaoeomeryx n. gen. nobis. 
As this provisional genus is founded on a single molar, its characters may be 
gathered from the following description of that specimen. 
Species : Propal^eomeryx sivalensis, nobis. 
Upper molar. — In a paper by the writer, styled a u Sketch of the History of the 
Fossil Yertebrata of India,” 1 it is stated that “ a single molar in the Indian Museum 
seems to indicate a Siwalik representative of the genus Faloeomeryx The specimen 
on which this statement rests is figured in the accompanying woodcut : 
it cannot be said that it properly belongs to the subject of the present 
fasciculus, but it does not come very inappropriately after the more 
ruminant-like Suina, and as it has some connection with teeth described 
in the preceding fasciculus, it has been found convenient not to postpone 
Pig. 2. Propaiceomeryx its description. The specimen 2 is from the sub-Himalayan Siwaliks, 
sivalensis •; left upper an q was formerly in the Rurki Museum, whence it was transferred 
true molar— Siwaliks 
—near Rurki. by exchange to the Indian Museum. 
The specimen is a perfect upper molar of the left side, in an intermediate stage 
of detrition. The figure will at once show that it belongs to a member of the true 
ruminant section, although the lowness of the crown, and the width and shallowness 
of the central 1 pits ’ indicate that it belongs to one of the primitive and little 
specialised members of that section. The structure of the enamel, which is faintly 
rugose, and the oblique position of the external walls of the 1 lobes,’ indicate 
affinity with the Camelopardalidce , Cervidce, and their allies. 
The ‘ crescents ’ are separated far down into the crown, and the first of these 
(left side of figure) is unsymmetrical, being produced on its anterior side. The 
external walls of the ‘ lobes’ are set more nearly in the same line than in 
Camelopardalis (plate XYI of preceding part, figs. 1 and 2), which character, together 
with the finer structure of the enamel, and the imperfect ‘ cingulum ’ which is seen 
on the anterior ■ crescent,’ distinguishes the tooth from the molars of the last named 
genus. There is no trace of any tubercle at the entrance to the median transverse 
valley. There is a distinct ‘ costa ’ on the outer surface of the anterior ‘ lobe,’ but 
none can be detected on the posterior ‘ lobe.’ 
The tooth, as already said, certainly does not belong to Camelopardalis , neither 
does it belong to Orasius of Wagner. The crown seems too low and the central ‘ pits ’ 
too shallow for it to have belonged to any of the true Cervidce. 
On the whole the specimen appears to come nearest to the upper molars of 
Falceomeryx bojani 3 pf the European miocene. There are no specimens of the molars 
1 ‘ J. A. S. B.,’ Vol. XLIX, pi. 2, p. 28. 2 No. B. 337, Ind Mus. 
3 H. von. Meyer, “Fossile Zahne von Georgensmiind,” 1831, pi. IX., fig. 75 : pi. X, fig. 79. 
