33—174 
SIWALIK SELENODONT SUINA, ETC. 
of this form in the British Museum, but by the courtesy of Professor Gfaudry an 
opportunity has been afforded of comparing the Indian tooth with a specimen of the 
upper molar series of that species from Sansan, in the Paris Museum (No. 5954). The 
Sansan teeth are much less worn than the Indian tooth, but allowing for this difference, 
there is a very close general resemblance between the two specimens. The Sansan 
teeth are, however, distinguished by having the ‘ costae ’ on their external surfaces, 
more prominently developed, by the presence of a distinct £ cingulum,’ and a large 
tubercle at the entrance of the median transverse valley. The central pits seem 
rather wider and shallower. In the structure of the enamel, and in size, the 
specimens are very similar. 
Another European species, P. eminens j from the pliocene of CEningen, is of 
nearly the same size as the Indian tooth, but is apparently only known by the 
mandible. 
There can be no question that the Indian tooth is' not specifically the same as 
Palceomeryx lojani ; and, taking into consideration the small differences in the molar 
teeth of ruminants which are of generic value, it seems highly probable that it 
should be referred to another genus. Its general resemblance to Palceomeryx is, 
however, so great that it almost certainly belongs to some closely allied form, and as 
it cannot be identified with any other known genus, the provisional generic name of 
Propalceomeryx is proposed for its reception, with the specific affix of sivalensis. 
Lower molar ? — It is just possible that the last lower molar represented in figure 
6 of plate XVI of this volume, and referred to Camelopardalis sivalensis , together with 
a similar specimen described in the text, may belong to the present species, the 
resemblance of the Indian upper molar and the upper molars of Palceomeryx lojani to 
those of Camelopardalis being so great, that it is very probable there might be 
considerable difficulty in always separating the lower molars of these forms. 
Judging from the teeth alone, it is probable that the larger species of Palceomeryx 
and the new genus Propalceomeryx were close links between Camelopardalis and the 
true Cervidce. If the 1 costae ’ of the molars of Palceomeryx lojani were slightly less 
developed, the ‘ cingulum ’ and tubercles suppressed, the £ pits ’ a little deeper, and 
the enamel a little more rugose, it would be very difficult to distinguish them from 
those of Camelopardalis. 
Meyer, “ Palaontographica,” Vol. II, p. 78, pi. XIII, fig. 5. 
