SIWALIK AND NARBADA CARNIVORA. 
75—252 
indicates tliat this tooth was elongated antero-posteriorly and inserted by two fangs. 
In all species of Canis, and apparently in all other species of Amphicyon , {c.g.i 
A. major , A. ambiguus, A. lemanensis), m. 3 has a sub-circular crown and is inserted by 
a single fang. The present specimen probably indicates affinity with an older form in 
which m. 3 was fully developed ; and is not so specialized as the lower carnassial 
described above. The length of mT2 is 0*T9, and its greatest width 056 inch. 
Distribution. — Assuming that the specimens described above are rightly associated, 
the range of the species extended from the Kangra district to Sind. The Sind 
specimens come from the lower Siwaliks, and from the presence of low beds (Nahan 
group) in the neighbourhood of Nurpur, it is not impossible that the specimen from 
that district may have been derived from that horizon. The Kushalghar specimen 
came from beds which have yielded Dinotherium , and may, therefore, equally well be 
low in the series. It is noteworthy that the European species which comes nearest 
to the Indian form occurs in Bohemia and Styria, on the eastern side of Europe. 
Genus II. : CANIS, Linn. 
Including Vulpes , Lupus , Urocyon , etc. 
, Distribution. — The dentition of the genus has already been sufficiently alluded 
to in earlier paragraphs ; and it has been noticed that forms like Ly corns should not 
improbably be included within it ; it may be further observed that in many instances 
it would be impossible to determine whether fossil remains of dogs belonged to Canis 
or to Cyon. With regard to the number of species, the uncertainty as to the 
validity of specific characters, and the host of forms that have received distinct 
specific appellations renders it almost impossible to give anything like a correct list 
of the existing, let alone of the fossil, forms. As to the date of the earliest appearance 
of the genus there is still considerable uncertainty. From the upper eocene of Paris 
an incomplete mandible of a canoid animal, with but a single tooth remaining,, has 
been described under the name of Canis parisiensisj Laur. ; it is, however, extremely 
doubtful whether this determination is generically correct. From the phosphorites 
of Quercy another mandible has been referred to the same genus under the name of 
C. yalceolycos, Gerv. 2 ; but is stated tO' present strong affinity to Ampliicyon. Two 
other species have also been described from the same deposits under the names of 
C. fdholij and C. cadurcensis . 4 The former is characterized by the very large size of 
the inner cusp of the blade of mTT, from which M. Filhol considers it extremely 
improbable that the species is a true Canis. The latter, though more like Canis , is 
considered by the same writer to be nearer Cynodictis : before, however, this can be 
certainly determined, it is necessary that the upper dentition should be known. 
These observations indicate that whether the four above-mentioned species should be 
referred to Canis , or to other genera, it is quite clear that they differ very considerably 
1 Gervais, “ Zoologie et Paleontologie Franchises,” 2nd ed., p. 213. 
2 Filhol, “ Phosphorites du Quercy,” p. 53. 3 IUd., p. 539, figs. 123-4. 4 Ibid., loc. cit., figs. 44-5. 
