20 INDIAN TERTIARY AND POST-TERTIARY VERTEBRATA. 
concave, and the median notch on the posterior border extends as far forward as the 
anterior border of m.3 . The fragment of the fronto-nasal region still remaining 
shows that in the neighbourhood of the orbit this portion was flattened and triangular, 
with a slight sulcus in advance of the small frontal foramen ; there is a shallow 
lachrymal depression, of which the whole is visible from the frontal aspect of the 
cranium, but no lachrymal vacuity ; there was no horn immediately above the orbit. 
The length of the series of cheek-teeth is 2T, that of the true molars 2T, and that 
of the premolars D04 inches. 
Mandible. — The fragment of the right ramus of the mandible of a small ruminant 
from the Siwaliks represented in woodcut fig. 4 agrees in relative size with the 
cranium, and not improbably belongs to the same species. It contains the last two 
lobes of mm. 4, and the complete m. 1 ; on the outer aspect of 
the latter there is seen the broken base of a slender accessory 
column, like that occurring in some examples of Tetraceros 
quadricornis. 
Affinities. — The structure of the true molars shows that 
the only groups to which the cranium under consideration 
could belong are the Tragulidce, the Cervidce, or the antelopes. 
From the existing genera of the former 1 it is distinguished 
by the taller teeth, the presence of an inner crescent to pm- 3 , the form of the palate, 
and the presence of a lachrymal depression. That it does not belong to the smaller 
members of the second family, like Cervulus and Moschus, is evident from the hypso- 
dont dentition, the elongation of pm. 3 , and the incompleteness of its inner crescent, 
together with the small size of the inner root of the latter and its total absence in 
pm. 2 5 while the absence of a lachrymal vacuity, the concavity and narrowness of 
the palate, and the form of the fronto-nasal region are equally distinctive characters. 
Among the smaller antelopes the specimen is at once distinguished from Gazella, 
Nemorheedus, Neotragus , Nanotragus , 2 and their allies by the squareness of the crowns 
of the true molars ; but when compared with the group comprising the African genus 
Gephalopus and the Indian Tetraceros a close agreement is found in this respect. The 
smaller species of the former, like C. madoqua , agree nearly in size with the fossil, but 
are distinguished by the much deeper lachrymal depression, of which only a portion 
is visible from the frontal aspect, by the wider frontal region, and the greater anterior 
extent of the median palatine notch. The premolars are moreover less elongated, 
and have less incomplete inner crescents, while the outer surfaces of the true molars 
are much narrower. In the upper molars of the larger species of that genus, like 
C. sylvicultriz , there is a well-developed inner accessory column, while some of the 
smaller species show a projection from the hinder border of the anterior crescent in 
little-worn true molars, which is wanting in the fossil. 
1 In the genera Prodremotherium. and Baehitheriim, ■which have been provisionally referred to this family (“ Cat. Foss. 
Mamm. Brit. Mus.” pt. II. pp. 150, 155), there is an imperfect inner crescent to pm. 3 . The molars are of a very brachydont 
structure. 
2 Including Calotragus, Scopophorus, Nesotragus, and Oreotragus ; see Brooke ‘Proc. Zool. Soe.’ 1872. p. 642. 
Fig. 4. (?) Tetraceros daviesi, Lyd. 
Fragment of the right ramus 
of the mandible ; from the 
Siwalik Hills. British Museum 
(No. 16535). 
