PART 1.] 
Lydekker: Notices of Siwalik 3Iammals. 
79 
Both the upper and lower teeth of Anthracotlterium silistrense are exceedingly 
like, both in size and foinn, to the teeth of an Antliracotherium from the brown-coal 
of Bonn (oligocene), described by Dr. Bocttger under the name of A. hreviceps 
(Troschel, sp.) ;* the lower molars of the Indian and Eurojjean forms are 
identical in size, while the Indian upper molar is rather larger than the 
European. If the two forms belong to one species (which I cannot decide with¬ 
out comparing the specimens together), the specific name of silistrense would 
stand, since this name was published by Pentland in 1829, while the specific 
name of hreviceps was given by Troschel in 1849.* 
Irrespective of the, at all events, closely allied European form, Anfhracotkerimn 
silistrense had a very wide range in India, having been found in Sylhet, in the 
Punjab, and in Sind. I have already referred to the possibility of the lower jaw 
of this species from the Punjab having been derived from a zone below that which 
produces the great majority of mammalian fossils; the occurrence of the genus in 
the Sind Siwaliks agrees well with the general older types of mammalian genera 
which occur in that area; among these older genera, we may specially mention 
Hyopotamus and Ifyotherium, which in India have not hitherto been found beyond 
the Sind area, and which in Europe did not survive, as far as we yet know, beyond 
the lower miocene 23eriod. 
Meetcopotamus-like Animals. 
It will perhaps be remembered that at page 78 of the previous volume of the 
“ Records ” I briefly noticed a single upper molar tooth of an extinct Siwalik animal 
allied to Meryenpotamus, and which I thought belonged to a new genus. During 
Bie past season Mr. Blanford has obtained from the Siwaliks of Sind two more 
imperfect upper molars of the same species, and in addition a penultimate lower 
molar of an animal of this class, which in size agrees well with the upper 
molars, and^ which does not belong either to Merycopotamus or Ilyopotawus; 
I think it IS, therefore, extremely probable that this lower molar belonged 
to the same animal as the above-mentioned up 2 ier molars. The lower molar 
IS distinguished from the corro.sponding tooth of Merycopotamus by having 
a lower crown, by the transverse valley being nearly blocked instead of freely 
open on the inner side, by the worn dentine surfaces of the inner and outer 
columns being of nearly equal width, and by the dentine surface of the inner 
column being equal to the whole length of that column, instead of occiqiying 
its summit only as in Merycopotamus. The form of the same dentine surface.^ 
also distinguishes this tooth from that of Hyopotamus, in which, as is well shewn 
in Professor Owen’s figure on 2 ilate viii of the fourth volume of the “ Quarterly 
Journal of the Geological Society,” the dentine surface of the outer column is 
large and wide, while that of the inner column only occupies the summit of the 
column, and not its whole length; the inner column of the new tooth is flatter 
and less conical than in either Hyopotamus or Merycopotamus. 
* Dnnkcr and /ittcFs Palteontograpliica, Vol. XXIV, p. 163. 
^ Boettger, swp. cit^ 
