273—96 INDIAN TERTIARY AND POST-TERTIARY VERTEBRATA. 
mentioned, tlie specimen differs from V. zibetha in the greater proportionate width of 
the frontals across the post-orbital processes, which is but very slightly! instead of 
very considerably, less than the width of the hinder part of the cranial box. In 
front of the post-orbital processes the frontals of the fossil skull contract much more 
rapidly; and their lateral surfaces, with the adjacent surfaces of the maxilla, are 
placed at right angles to their superior surface, instead of at an obtuse angle. 
Posteriorly also the sagittal ridges of the frontals are more strongly developed ; and 
with the sudden anterior contraction of the frontals, cause the middle part of those 
bones to form a nearly perfect diamond-shaped space, quite different from the 
corresponding part of the civet or zibeth. The orbit of the fossil is relatively 
smaller. These differences indicate the specific distinctness of the fossil from 
V. zibetha. 
Of the other undoubted species of Viverra given in the foregoing list, the only 
one approaching in size to V. zibetha is V. angusticlens : the lower jaw of that form is, 
however, too small to have belonged to the present specimen : and the extreme 
shortness of m.T indicates that it belonged to a species in which pm. 4 was short. 
The so-called V. gigantea cannot belong to the same species as the present specimen, 
since it is markedly meionocreodont, and its lower teeth are very different from 
those of V. zibetha. 
It seems, therefore, that the fossil under consideration is specifically distinct 
from any described species of Viverra ; all of which it greatly exceeds in size. It 
may be appropriately named V. durandi , in honour of the late Sir H. M. 
Durand, the associate of Sir W. E. Baker in the early collection and description of 
Siwalik fossils. 
Second specimen. — In plate Q, figures 2, 2a, of the supplement to the “ Fauna 
Antiqua Sivalensis ” there is figured, under the name of Canis (?) sp., 1 the anterior 
part of a cranium of a carnivore from the Siwaliks, now in the British Museum 
(No. 37,150). The specimen has been broken off anteriorly in front of the canine, 
and posteriorly in the middle of the cranial box ; the whole of the teeth have either 
dropped from their sockets, or have been hammered off. The whole contour of the 
specimen, and especially the production of the palate far behind the socket of m. 2 , 
shows that the specimen is not a canine, but a viverrine carnivore. The middle 
portion of the skull (which is the only part common to the two specimens) precisely 
resembles the corresponding part of V. durandi , as may be seen by anyone who takes 
the trouble of comparing the two specimens in the British Museum 2 ; the peculiar 
diamond-shaped frontals, with their sudden fore-and-aft contractions, being as well 
displayed in one specimen as in the other : the vertical lateral surfaces of the frontals 
are also the same in both. On the palatal aspect also the two specimens appear 
perfectly similar, the palate being produced in the same manner behind m, 2 ; and 
1 See “ Palaeontological Memoirs,” vol. I., p. 553. 
2 As the number of plates required for this memoir is very large the writer has been compelled to omit figures of some 
specimens : he has preferred to do this in the case of specimens in the British Museum, which are easily accessible, rather 
than in the case of thoSe belonging to the Indian Museum, Calcutta. 
