231—54 INDIAN TERTIARY AND POST-TERTIARY VERTEBRATA. 
than in U. arctos (which again is more so than in U. torquatus ), and more nearly 
resembles the corresponding part of the carnassial of Cams. The lower canine 
of Dinoc yon thenar di is unknown ; but the upper is sub-cylindrical. 
In regard to the shape of the mandible, the inferior border is straight, in place 
of being convex as in Hycenarctos sivalensis. The vertical depth of the jaw consider- 
ably exceeds the length of the carnassial in which respect the specimen agrees 
with Ursus, Dinocyon , and Ceplialogale ,‘ and differs from Amphicyon and Cams. 
The dimension of the specimen are compared below with those of Hycenarctos 
sivalensis : — 
Depth at pm. 2 
Thickness at m. 2 
Interval between canine and pm. 4 
,, ,, pm. 2 ,, ,, 3 
Length of 3 true molars . 
Interval between canine and hinder end of m. 3 
Specimen. 
2-05 
2- 15 
0- 94 
1- 45 
0-75 
3- 52 
5-83 
3-25 
5-35 
Length of pm. 4 
Width „ „ „ 
Length ,, 'm. 1 
Width „ „ „ ... 
Length ,, ,, 2 
Width „ „ „ 
Length ,, ,, 3 
Width „ „ „ 
Antero-posterior diameter of canine 
Transverse ,, ,, ,, 
Length of ditto 
0- 9 
1- 68 
0- 84 
1- 25 
0-9 
0-67 
0- 67 
1- 13 
2-1 
0-9 
0- 5 
1- 35 
1-15 
0-75 
1-6 
0-95 
These dimensions show that the carnassial is considerably longer than that of 
H. sivalensis , and m72 considerably broader : the jaw also has a much less vertical 
height, indicating that this species was a more slender-jawed animal than the former; 
— a conclusion in harmony with that drawn from the upper jaw. 
Sind specimen . — There is in the Indian Museum (No. D. 28) a much battered 
fragment of the symphysial extremity of the right ramus of the mandible of a 
species of Hycenarctos , collected by Mr. F. Fedden in the lower Manchhars (Siwaliks) 
of Sind, showing the broken base of the canine and pm. 2. From the position of the 
latter tooth the specimen not improbably belongs to the present species. 
Distinctness as a species. — The foregoing comparisons leave no reasonable doubt 
but that the specimens under consideration belong to a species distinct from 
Hycenarctos sivalensis ; and also probably distinct from the Hycenarctos of the 
Red Crag. With II. insignis, of Montpellier, 2 it appears to be more nearly related : 
it seems, however, to be distinguished by the greater backward prolongation of the 
postero-internal angle of m. 2 ; and the inner ridge of m, 1 seems raised into more distinct 
cusps in the European form, while the inner and outer ridges are less approximated : 
the upper carnassials of the two agree in having a large internal tubercle, but the 
l Filhol, op. cit., pi. II., fig. 2. 
2 Gervais, “ Zool. et Pal. Franc;.,” pi. LXXXI., figs. 3-7. 
