86 
Records of the Geological Survey of India. [voL. XT. 
the upper molars. The dimensions of the specimen with the upper milk-molars 
are as follow :— 
laehes. 
Length of first true molar ...... 1-09 
Width of „ „ . 1.18 
Length of last milk-molar ...... 0'98 
Width of „ „ ...... 0-90 
of penultimate milk-molar ..... 0 70 
The portion of the left ramus of a mandible containing the two last molars, 
in respect of the last tooth agrees well with Falconer’s original specimen of the 
same tooth; the penultimate molar is, however, somewhat smaller than the corre¬ 
sponding tooth of the lower jaw figured by me in the “ Palieontologia Indica,” 
which has already been referred to. Unfoitunately the lower part of the mandible 
of the new specimen has been broken away, but from its thickness at the broken 
pai-t it would appear that the jaw was deep, as in tho figured specimen. 
The next specimen, which contains tho last molar of the^ right ramus of the 
mandible, ha,s a narrower jaw, and therefore cannot have belonged to the same 
species as the abovementioned figured jaw; the tooth of the new specimen is also 
somewhat smaller than the corresponding tooth of Mi'. Theobald’s other specimen 
of the mandible. 
In the following table I have given the dimen.sions of the figured jaw in the 
first column (a) ; in the .second column (&) the dimensions of Falconer’s specimen 
of the last molar; in the third column (c) Mr. Theobald’s specimen with two 
molars; in the fourth column (d) the jaw of the living Giraffe ; and in the fifth 
column (e) Mr. Theobald’s specimen with the last molar only; I shall sub¬ 
sequently refer to the specimens under the heads of the above letters :—• 
Length of penultimate molar 
a. 
. 1-25 
b. 
c. 
I'lO 
d. 
1-15 
e. 
Width of 
. I'OO 
0-90 
0-90 
Length of last molar 
1-7 
1-69 
1-75 
1’40 
Width of „ 
10 
O'PO 
0-90 
0-75 
Depth of jaw at Inst molar 
■ 2-40 
1'65 
1-50 
Now, if these measurements are compared with the measurements given above 
of the upper molars, there can be no doubt but that specimens c and h belong to 
0. sivalensis, and that specimen a, though slightly larger, also must probably be 
referred to the same. Specimen e is. however, as I have said, too small to have 
belonged to G. sivalensis, and must probably bo referred to a new species; this 
specimen, Mr. Theobald tells me, was obtained far below the horizon of the other 
fossils, and therefore its specific distinctness is the more probable. The depth of 
the jaw of this specimen is absolutely less than that of 0. giraffa, but is really pro¬ 
portionally greater, and the species, like 0. sivalensis, belonged to a deeper-jawed 
type ; thus in G. giraffa the length of the last molar exceeds the depth of the jaw 
by O'l inch, while in specimen e the depth of the jaw exceeds the length of the last 
molar by OT inch. 
The penultimate tooth of specimen o bears a small tubercle in the outer valley, 
as is the case in the figured specimen a ; the last molar, as in Falconer’s specimen 
6, contains no tubercle in the anterior valley, but has a very small one in the 
