SIWALIK AND NARBADA CARNIVORA. 
59—236 
The foregoing comparisons prove conclusively that the mandible under 
consideration belongs to a species of Hycenarctos specifically distinct both from 
H. sivalensis and II. punjabiensis. Its somewhat smaller size, and certain canoid 
characters of the dentition render it not improbable that it may belong to H. 
palceindicus ; but if this be not the case it must be referred to a fourth species. As 
indicative of the former view it is not impossible that the suppression of m. 3 may 
be correlated with the total absence of the hind talon of m. 2 in IT. palceindicus. 
It is worthy of remark that the four known Siwalik specimens of the skull or 
upper molar dentition of Hycenarctos belong to three distinct species ; and that the 
specifically determinable specimens of the mandible also indicate three species, — 
probably identical with the others. This indicates the extreme richness in species 
of the Siwalik Carnivora, and the rarity of their remains ; and should serve as a 
strong inducement to the continued collection of Siwalik fossils. 
Distribution . — All the remains that can be referred to the present species have 
been obtained from the Punjab. 
Affinities of Hycenarctos. 
Dental formula. — Having now described, as far as they are known, the three Siwalik 
species of the genus, it remains to take into consideration its general affinities. 
The dental formula may be represented as follows, viz., I. f (?), C. j, Pm. •§, 
M. - 2 )-3) . In all the species, as far as known, pm. 3 was inserted by two fangs : in 
H. sivalensis pm. 2 had one fang, but two fangs were present in H. punjabiensis. In 
both these species pm. 3 had only a single fang, but in the mandible provisionally 
assigned to IT. palceindicus this tooth was furnished with two fangs. The upper true 
molars of R. punjabiensis are the most bear-like, and those of R. palceindicus the most 
dog-like ; the latter species shows moreover indications of strong canine affinities in 
its lower premolars. 
Comparison with Arctotherium. — In the first edition of the u Zoologie et 
PaHontologie Framjaises,” 1 Prof. Gervais described certain remains of a large bear- 
like animal from the pleistocene of S. America under the name of Ursus bonariensis ; 
and at a later period figured the lower molars under the same name. 2 In 1860 M. 
Bravard described the remains of an ursine animal from the same deposits under the 
name of Arctotherium latidens? Still later Prof. Gervais published another note, 4 in 
which he came to the conclusion that his Ursus bonariensis was subgenerically distinct 
from Ursus , and was in all probability specifically identical with Arctotherium latidens , 
Brav. : it was also mentioned that the specific name bonariensis had the undoubted 
priority ; and that the genus, or sub-genus, was allied to Ursus ( TremarctosJ ornatus 
of Chili. 
1 Paris, 1848-5'2, vol. I., p. 189. 2 ‘Ann. d. Sci. Nat. — Zool.,’ vol. III., p. 330. 
3 “ Catalogue des especes d’Animaux Fossiles recueilles dans l’Amerique de Sud,” Parana, 1860. 
4 ‘ Coinptes Rendus,’ vol. LXV., p. 811. 1867 
