SIWALIK AND NARBADA CARNIVORA. 
17—193 
exhibits the alveolus of the second true molar (m. 2). A comparison of this specimen 
with the one represented in figure 3 shows that the two evidently belonged to the 
same species of animal; the portion common to the two (viz., that immediately 
behind the carnassial) being absolutely identical : both specimens present the well- 
marked muscular impression, characteristic of the otters, immediately behind the 
last molar. 1 
In the following table the dimensions of the specimen represented in figure 3 
are compared with those of the mandibles 
of L. 
palceindica and of 
the living 
L. sinning * 2 : — 
Fig. 3. 
L. palseindica. 
L. simung. 
Interval between canine and hinder border of m. 1 
1-55 
1-2 
1-46 
Length of m. 1 
0-69 
0-52 
0-64 
Depth of jaw at m. 1 . . . . . 
079 
0-48 
0-45 
These figures show that the jaw under consideration is distinguished from the 
other mandibles not only by its superior size, but also by the much greater 
proportionate depth of the jaw itself. In the species selected for comparison, and 
apparently in all other living otters, with one exception, the depth of the jaw is 
considerably less than the length of the carnassial (m. 1) ; whereas in the specimen 
under consideration the reverse is the case. 
The large living South African Lutra fAomjxJ lalandi (Less) 3 appears, however, 
to differ from all other living otters by the great depth of the mandible, which 
exceeds the length of the carnassial, as is shown by the following measurements, 
which are compared with those of the specimen represented in figure 3 : — 
L. lalandi. Fig. 3. 
Interval between canine and hinder border of m. 1 l - 58 .. .. 1 *55 
Length of m. 1 07 .. .. 0-69 
Depth of jaw at m. 1 076 .. .. 079 
These measurements show how extremely close the fossil and recent jaws are to one 
another. Comparing the figures given here with those given by .De Blainville, it 
will be found that the inner view of the hinder part of the mandible represented in 
figure 4 corresponds with De Blainville’s outline figure of the same aspect. A 
comparison of the outer side of the former specimen with De Blainville’s figure of 
the same has shown that the two are almost identical, the sudden upward direction 
of the inferior border of the ramus behind the last molar (not well shown in the 
position of the figure of the fossil) being the same in both, and apparently quite 
peculiar to these two forms. The fossil seems, however, to be distinguished from 
the recent form by the more outward inclination of the ascending ramus, and by the 
more distinct notch separating the hinder border of this ramus from the inner angle 
of the condyle, but there is no doubt that the two forms are very closely allied. 
With regard to the other fossil forms of the genus the only species of those 
given in the list on page 190 with which, on account of their size, the specimens 
1 The specimen represented in fig, 4 should have been figured with the hinder (condylar) extremity more elevated. 
k Anderson, loe. cit., pi. XII., fig. 1. 
si De Blainville, “ Osteographie,” Genus Mustela, pi. VIII. ( Lutra inunguis). 
