PART 1.] 
Lydekher : Notices of Siwalik Mammals. 
77 
ARTIODACTYLA. 
SUINA. 
Genus; Hyotheuicm. 
A considerable number of detached molars of both bunodont and selenodont 
pig-like animals have been obtained by Messrs. Blanford and Tedden from Sind; 
to some of these specimens I have already referred at pages 76 and 225 of the tenth 
volume of this publication. 
At page 76 of that volume I shortly described certain upper molar teeth which 
I then referred to Samthermm sohlaginiweitii, thinking that they agreed in size 
with the lower molars of that species, and that from their form they could not 
belong to any European genus ; I, however, pointed out their resemblance to the 
molars of Hyotherium (or GhoBrotherium, as it is often called). 
I now find that these teeth do really belong to Hyotherium ; the first specimens 
were distorted and crushed, and consequently were altered from their true form ; 
those specimens, moreover, were unusually small, and were both first molars: the last 
molars, which have now been obtained, shew that they are too large to have 
belonged to S- scMagintweitii. 
Some of the smaller of these upper molars are almost identical in form with 
certain teeth of H. medium from the upper miocene of Weissenaii, in the 
collection of the Indian Museum ; they are, however, of larger size, and are there¬ 
fore probably distinct; if such be the case, I shall propose to call the Sind form 
H. sindiense. 
It will be inferred from the above that the upper molars of Sanitherium arc 
still unknown; the name of that genus must also be removed from the list 
of the tertiary Mammalia of Sind. 
Anthracotheeium, Rhagatheeium, and Ch(eeomeeyx. 
The confusion caused by the reference of teeth of two distinct genera to 
Ghoeromeryx (Anthracotherium) silistrensis, has been so great, that it is somewhat 
difiicult to recover from it. It will be remembered that at page 225 of the tenth 
volume of the “ Records ” I separated the five-columned tooth, which had been 
referred to the above species, from the four-columned teeth which really belong to 
Q. silistrensis; and that, at the same time, I considered that the former might 
possibly belong to Bhagatherium, though I was not certain of this (owing to the 
fact that we*have scarcely any specimens of European genera of extinct pig-like 
animals in the Indian Museum for comparison). It has subsequently occurred to 
me that there is really no reason, as far as I can gather from their form, for 
separating the five-columned teeth in question from the genus Anthracotherium, 
although they resemble in some points those of the closely allied Bhagatherium; 
and that consequently Pentland was really right in assigning the five-columned tooth 
from Sylhet to Anthracotherium, but that he was rvrong in assigning also the 
four-columned teeth to the same genus and species; subsequent authors, as I have 
said in my former notice, erred in referring the five-columned tooth to Gkcerotiieryx, 
which genus was made expressly for the four-columned teeth. 
