■PAUT L] 
Lydekker: Noticen of Skcalik Mammals. 
(37 
clearly separate the fossil from the species belougiug to the genera Gynoceidialus or 
Semtwpithecus .”—(“ Palaeontological Memoirs,” Vol. I, p. 299.) The authors seem 
here clearly to have considered that the specie.s could not belong to Semnopithems, 
and not to have as.signed it to any genus. The next notice of the specimen occurs 
at page 7 of Profe.ssor Owen’s “British Fossil Mammals and Birds,” where the 
following passage occurs : “All these remains were entirely fossili.sed, and they 
satisfactorily confirmed the conclusions of Lieutenants Baker and Durand, that a 
large species of iSeynnopithecws had co-existed with the Sivatfierijun and the Hippopo- 
tamus.” Now, as we have seen, the authors in question, if I understand them 
aright, expres.5ly stated the distinctness, in their opinion, of the species from 
Semnopithecus. 
Apparently from this statement of Prof. Owen, H. von kleyer in the “ Index 
Palseontologicus” (Nomenclature, Vol. II, p. 1133) refers to this specimen un¬ 
hesitatingly under the genus SemnojntherAts, and there gives it the name of 
8. suhhimalayanm. 
In his “ Osteographie” (Primates, p. 60) M. de Blainville refers to the speci¬ 
men, and thinks (if indeed it belong to a Monkey at all) that it is more nearly 
allied to Mmcicus, and, above all, to Gynocephalus, from both of which genera the 
original describers thought that it was generically distinct, although they observe 
that “ were it not for the size of the canine and the fifth molar, it presents some 
resemblance to the genu.s Macacus.” 
From the above it seems to be clear that the specimen in question has no ■ 
right to the generic title of Seranopitheoiis, though I do not mean to say that it 
may not belong to it. When the .specimen is alluded to under that name, it must 
be distinctly understood that this is only done as a matter of convenience, and 
because it has so frequently been referred to under that name. 
The next specimen was an astragalus discovered and described by Messrs. 
Falconer and Cautley, who remark (“ Paleeontologieal Memoirs,” Vol. I, p. 300) : 
“ It (the specimen) con’esponds exactly in size with the astragalus of the Semnopi- 
tliecus entellus;” and again : “ This astragalus, in conjunction with Messrs. Baker 
and Durand’s specimen, satisfied us of the existence of at least two distinct fossil 
Quaclrumana in the Siwalik hills.” 
In the same Memoir the.se authors also treat of two other specimens which 
were both fragments of lower jaws containing teeth; one of these jaws was 
larger than that of S. entellm, and belonged, according to Falconer, to 
“ a species of smaller size than the animal to which the specimen described by 
Messrs. Baker and Durand ” belonged ; there is no direct statement of the genus of 
the specimen, though I infer that the authors inclined to think it belonged to 
Semnopithecus. It appears to me to be not improbable that this specimen and the 
above-mentioned Astragalus may have belonged to the same species. 
The other specimen of a lower jaw belonged to an animal intermediate in 
size between Semnopithecus entellus and Macacus rhesus; this specimen the authors 
thought probably belonged to the genus Macacus {Pithecus') ; an additional 
specimen of the lower jaw of the same species was also obtained. 
There are therefore three Siwalik species of Monkeys known from the evidence 
of molar teeth, via., a large species specifically named subhimalayanus, and which 
