249—72 INDIAN TERTIARY AND POST-TERTIARY VERTEBRATA. 
published in the “ Palaeontological Memoirs,” 1 to the following effect : — “ Amphicyon. 
— The specimen is the tubercular tooth of a large carnivorous animal, as large as the 
polar bear and allied to the Ampliicyon ” When the specimen came into 
the present writer’s hands in 1875 it had a label attached bearing the name Amphicyon 
palceindicus , in Dr.. Falconer’s handwriting. The tooth belongs to the right side of 
the skull of a canoid animal ; and from the small size of the second outer cusp it is 
probably the second true molar. The grinding surface of the crown carries on its 
outer side ( top of figure) two conical cusps, of which the foremost ( right of figure) 
is about twice the size of the hinder : there is a distinct cingulum at the base of 
these cusps, which in its regular form and distinctness agrees with Amphicyon. On 
the inner side of the tooth there is a very large and broad cingulum, embracing the 
whole of the inner half of the crown ; also agreeing with the tooth of Amphicyon. 
Within this cingulum there is a smaller crescent, culminating in one large median 
cusp ; the presence of which distinguishes the tooth from m. 1 of Cards , in which 
there are two inner cusps. The surface separating the inner cusp from the outer 
cusps is nearly flat, and not bounded by ridges antero-posteriorly. The proportionate 
excess of the transverse over the antero-posterior diameter is greater than in Canis, 
and similar to that prevailing in typical species of Amphicyon. In the following 
table the dimensions of the specimen are compared with the corresponding dimensions 
of m. 2 of A. major , vis . : — 
A. palasindicus. A. major. 
Greatest antero-posterior diameter 0 - 76 0 - 87 
„ transverse ,, 1*12 l - 3 
Height of antero-external cusp . 0-4 0-52 
Although it is impossible to determine the number of molar teeth in the animal 
to which the specimen belonged, yet the resemblance of the tooth to the molars of 
Amphicyon is so strong that there is every probability that it belonged to that genus. 
The size of the tooth indicates an animal far larger than the wolf, showing that the 
only species in the foregoing list with which it can be compared in this respect, are 
A. giganteus , A. major , and A. intermedins . 2 From the first (assuming that species to be 
distinct from A . major) the specimen is sufficiently distinguished by its much smaller 
size. From the second 3 it is distinguished by the transverse being proportionately 
greater than the antero-posterior diameter, and by the inner cingulum being broader 
and flatter, and the inner crescent much less distinctly marked : this part in the 
European species not being differentiated into any distinct cusp : the surface between 
the inner crescent and the outer cusps in the latter is distinctly hollowed, and 
bounded antero-posteriorly by the crescent. The writer has not had an opportunity 
of comparing the upper molars of A. intermedins with the Indian tooth, but as it will 
be shown that the lower carnassial of that species is distinct from the corresponding 
tooth provisionally referred to the present species, it may be inferred, if this 
reference be correct, that the upper molars of the two forms would be distinct. In 
i Vol. I., p. 416. 2 Unless A., curtum be a larg'e species. 
3 The larger specimens figured by Blainville are taken as the type. 
