PART 1.] 
L^dekker: Notices oj" Siicaiik Jlammals. 
So 
the measurements of the corresponding teeth obtained b_r Dr. Falconer and taken 
from page 2C>2 of the first volume of the “ Palseontolosical Memoirswhile in 
the third column (e) I have given the measurements of the corresponding teeth 
of the living C. girada : — 
h. C. 
Length of two last mt^ars 
In. 
2-40 
In, 
2 -iO 
In. 
2'55 
, of last mclar 
1-27 
120 
1-21 
Width of „ „ 
1-25 
1-40 
l-.» 
Length of p«£nn!tiinat« molar 
1-19 
... 
l-il 
Width of „ „ . 
1-35 
14-5 
i-;^5 
Length of first molar 
ivq 
1-10 
Width of „ „ 
1-10 
... 
1-20 
Length of last premolar 
0-S-S 
oto 
Width of „ „ 
14)6 
1-10 
Length of pennltiaiate premolar 
O-sO 
14)0 
IttS 
Width of > „ _ . 
t>-S8 
112 
1-22 
It will be seen that the present teeth agree very closely in size with Falconer's 
specimens generally, being, however, slightly smaller. One verv important differ¬ 
ence distinguishes the dental series of the fossil species from that of the recent 
species: in the former the last premolar is both longer and broader than the 
penultimate premolar, while in the recent species the pentdtimate premolar is 
both longer and broader than the last premolar. In my above-quoted notice of 
the lower jaw of the fossil species, I pointed out that the jaw was much deeper than 
that of the recent species, and that the last premolar was relatively more elon¬ 
gated ; and also that the one known cervical vertebra was shorter. 
There are. therefore, many points of distinction between the recent and fossil 
forms, thongh the resemblance of the true molar series is very close in the two. 
At page '2>j2 of the first volume of the “ Paleontological Memoirs.'' Dr. Falwner 
remarks, that the penultimate upper premolar of the fossil species has three 
tubercles at the inside of the base, which do not occur in the corresponding tooth 
of the recent species: in Mr. Theobald s specimens these tubercles are likewise 
absent, and therefore do not seem to be of any specific value; indeed, this tooth 
appears to be liable to vary in the recent species, as in a specimen of a recent 
cranium in the Indian Museum, the penultimate upper molar is fumishei with 
a distinct cingninm on the inner side, which is not noticed in Owen's " Odont- 
cgraphy,’’ or in Or. Biainville’s figures. 
The other specimens of upper true molars collected hr Mr. Theobald do not 
require further notice, as they are in no wise different from the preceding speci¬ 
mens. The specimen of the m«villa with the two last milk-molars tas the first 
tooth somewhat injured: this tooth is narrower in front than behind, as is usually 
the case in Ruminants; the last milk-molar has a distinct tubercle in the valley 
separating the inner columns; in the permanent molars of C. si-olensis there is 
generaDy no trace of any similarly-placed tubercle, though some specimens m 
the Indian Museum and Falconer s original specimens shew a very small one; 
in the recent species there seems to be always a tubercle in the inner valley of 
