78 
Uficords of the Geological Survey of India. 
[vOL. XI. 
Considering, tlien, that there is really no reason for separating the five-columned 
teeth from Sind and Sylhet from the genus Anthracotherium, it will occur to the 
reader that at page 78 of the tenth volume of the “ Records ” I described under the 
name of Anthracotherium puiijubiense a lower jaw of a species of that genus obtained 
from the Siwaliks of the Punjab, and that I then remarked, “ although these 
teeth belong to an animal of about the same size as Ghceromeryx, they cannot be 
rofen-ed to that genus, as they present no generic points of difference from the 
teeth of the European species of Anthracothernm,.” Now, since we have found 
that the upper five-columned teeth falsely referred to Ghmromeryx really do belong 
to Anthracotherium, it will bo jirotty evident that as they agree in size with the 
lower molars assigned to A. punjahiense that they really belonged to the same 
species. 
Now, with regard to the specific names, it is pretty evident that Pentland, 
in giving the name of Anthracotherium siUstrense to the Sylhet teeth, relied upon 
the larger five-columned tooth, neglecting the distinct characters of the smaller 
four-columned teeth. It is also tolerably evident that Pomel, in making the new 
genus Ghwroineryx, founded it on the evidence of the four-columned teeth, the original 
figure' of the five-columned tooth being indistinct, though a second figure given 
in the “ Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis,” ^ and apparently copied from the original, 
is distinct. 
I therefore think that the name Antlircwotherium, silistre^ise must apply to the 
five-columned teeth from Sind and Sylhet and also to the lower jaw from the Punjab, 
and that consequently my two specific names of sindieme omA punjabieuse must 
be abandoned. 
With I'egard to the .specific name of Glmromeryx, I cannot find in the original 
notices that the specific n.amo of siUdrensis is coupled with this genus ; but since 
Ghivromeryn; is quoted as being equivalent to Antkracotheriwn siUstrense, it 
appears evident that the specific name was intended to apply to that genus, though 
that genus has really no right to it. One would therefore be at liberty to as.sign 
a new name to Ghmromeryx, but I think it best to continue to apply the name of 
silistrensis to the specie.s, irrespective of the question of the identity of the genus 
with Merycopotamus. 
The synonomy of Anthracotherium siUstrense and Ghmromeryx silistrensis 
will therefore stand as follows :— 
Antheacotheritjm silistbense —Pent, (excluding four-columned teeth). 
Syn. Anthracotherium punjahiense, Lyd. 
Ithagatherium (1) sindiense, Lyd. 
Ghmromeryx, Pomel, in pai-te. 
Chceeomebtx sii.istrbnsis, Pomel (excluding five-columned tooth). 
Syn. Anthracotherium silistrensis. Pent., in parte. 
I regret the part which I have taken in adding to this confusion of names; 
hut under the circumstances it was almost unavoidable until I discovered the 
original errors in identification. 
* Trans. Geol. Soc. Lend., Ser. 11, Vol. 11, pi. 45, figs. 4, 5. 
2 PI. 68, fig. 23. 
