SIWALIK AND NARBADA CARNIVORA. 
23—200 
but in the older head [Ibid, fig 5] the middle incisors are not only wanting, but the 
alveoli are completely filled up and obliterated, there being nothing but a blank space 
between the outer incisors. . . . .” 
“The canines of the upper jaw, like the lateral incisors, were proportionately 
large, and of great strength and massiveness. A section of the right one is got in 
the head, fig. 5, of a circular form. The dimensions are antero-posterior lines, 
transverse ditto 4f . In the > Q ad, fig. 2, both the canines had dropped out, and the 
two alveolar cavities are exposed, showing that the fang was comparatively short, and 
much dilated, evincing a resemblance in this respect to the canines of the Seals.” 
In the specimen represented in figure 5 of plate XXVII of the present memoir, 
merely the alveoli of the canines and incisors remain : these shew that the middle 
incisors had not been shed during the life of the animal. It may be remarked that 
while in the living otters the antero-posterior diameter of the base of the canine is 
considerably less than the corresponding diameter of pm. 3 ; in the fossil form the 
former diameter is considerably the larger of the two. This is shown in the following 
measurements of the teeth of the skull figured in plate XXVII, fig. 5. 
Length of ml 0'55 
Width ,, ,, 0-8 
Length ,, pm.4 0‘7 
Width „ „ 07 
Length ,, pm.3 . 0'4 
Width . ; 0-35 
Ant. post. diam. of alveolus of canine 0‘63 
Transverse „ ,, ,, 0-54 
In Lutra eampani the proportions of the canines and incisors are almost precisely 
the same as in the Siwalik form. 
Summary . — The foregoing observations indicate that the so-called Enhydriodon 
was a lutrine animal considerably larger than any existing otter, with which, however, 
it agreed in the form of the skull. Moreover, in the young state the dentition agreed 
numerically with the condition in which it frequently exists in one of the living otters 
(L. leptonyx ), although pm. 2 and one of the incisors were generally, or occasionally, 
shed as age advanced. The general form of the teeth makes a very near approach to 
that of the living otters ; the main points of distinction being in the form of pm. 4, 
and in the relatively greater size of the canine and outer incisor. In the extinct 
Lutra eampani , which was somewhat smaller than the Siwalik form, the proportionate 
size of the canine and incisors is approximately the same as in the latter ; the form 
of pm. 4 is, however, intermediate between that of the latter and of existing species 
of j Lutra, but perhaps nearer to the Siwalik fossil than to the living forms. In the 
whole of its dentition this form is, therefore, precisely intermediate between existing 
otters and the Siwalik form. 1 If L. eampani be referred to the genus Lutra , the so- 
called Enhydriodon cannot be distinguished by any well-marked characters from that 
l It should be observed that Dr. Falconer’s memoir on ^Enhydriodon was not published at the date of Frof. Meneghini’s 
memoir. 
