SIWALIK AND NARBADA CARNIVORA. 
111—288 
allied to II, eximia and H. brevirostris. From the former, and probably also from 
the latter, it is broadly distinguished by the large size of the inner tubercle of pm. 4 ; 
the absence of an outer cingulum to pm. 3 and m. 1 ; the larger size of the anterior 
talon of pm. 4 ; and the absence of pm. 1. H. groeca is sufficiently distinguished by 
the presence of pm. 1 and m. 2, and the large size of m. 1 . 
The third upper premolar of H. antiqua, of the Red Crag, is said to indicate 
relationship to II. striata ; and the former species is, therefore, unlikely to be allied 
to II fclina. 
With regard to II. sinensis / described upon the evidence of specimens of the 
third upper and lower premolars, obtained from a cave in the province of Sechuen 
(Sez-chuen), N.W. China, it appears from a comparison of the specimens in the 
British Museum, that pm. 3 is practically indistinguishable from the corresponding 
tooth of II. felina represented in tigs. 2, 2a of plate XXXVA. of this volume, except 
in its slightly larger size. The lower tooth is also almost precisely similar to pm. 3 
of the mandible of II. felina represented in figure 1 of plate XXXVIII. According 
to Prof. Owen’s description the Chinese upper tooth differs from pm 3 of H. crocuta 
by its slightly smaller size, its relatively lower crown, the greater convexity of its 
external vertical contour, and the larger size of its hind talon. Of the lower 
premolar it is observed by Prof. Owen that u the crown is broader both antero- 
posteriorly and transversely, but is lower vertically than in H. crocuta ; it is 
consequently a stronger cone: its qualities for cracking and crushing bone are 
intensified. The ridge continued upward from the anterior basal talon is stronger 
than in II crocuta ; it is more completely an upward production of the talon itself ; 
and this is less defined as an anterior tubercle than in 22. striatal 
It will be observed from these comparisons that the points in which the so-called 
H. sinensis differs from II. crocuta are precisely those in which 72. felina differs from 
the same. Professor Owen also compares the Chinese teeth with those of the 
Siwalik hysenas in the British Museum, which he alludes to as H. sivalensis ; though 
under that name were doubtless included both the teeth of H. felina and those of 
the next species. H. sinensis is said to be smaller than the Siwalik form ; but its 
P m - 3 more nearly resembles the corresponding tooth of the latter than that of 
22. crocuta'. the lower Chinese tooth is said to be more convex internally than the 
corresponding tooth of the Siwalik hyaena ; but it is not more so than in the large 
Indian Museum mandible of H. felina. The third premolar of that specimen is 
absolutely larger than the corresponding tooth of E. sinensis , so that any specific 
distinctions on the ground of size may be disregarded. The resemblance of the 
Chinese teeth to those of II. felina is so close that in the writer’s opinion it is highly 
probable that they are specifically the same : in which case Prof. Owen’s name has 
the priority over that given by Mr. Bose. From the number of species of Siwalik 
hysenas, it may, however, be doubted whether the characters derived from single 
i ‘ Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc.,’ vol. XXVI., p. 422, pi. XXVIII., figs. 5-7. In the explanation of the plate the 
description of figures o and 6 should he reversed. 
