PART ],] Lydekker: Fwfher Notices of SiwctUk Mammalia. 
:39 
man. The antero-posterior extent of the second premolar, according to Professor 
Owen, is, however, greater than in the chimpanzee, and therefore still greater 
than in the Siwalik fossil; the latter, however, agrees with Dryopithecus in 
having naiTOw incisors. 
Reviewing the whole of the foregoing facts, it does not appear that our fossil 
jaw agrees precisely with the jaw of any known living or fossil anthropoid ape, 
though it seems to make the nearest approach to that of the chimpanzee, and 
also shows some points of affinity with the jaws of man, Bryopithecus, and the 
orangs. The resemblance between the Siwalik jaw and that of the chimpanzee 
does not, however, appear to me to he so close as to warrant our classing the two 
under the same genus, because, with the very marked difference which occurs in 
the relative dimensions of the last premolars in the two jaws, there is every pro¬ 
bability that equally well marked differences existed between the crania of the 
two animals. It must, however, be again borne in mind that the chimpanzee 
and the gorilla, which present such difference in the form of this tooth, are classed 
in the same genus. 
Since I do not think that we are justified in referring the Siwalik jaw to any 
known genus, I propose to form for it the new generic name ‘ Palceopithecus,’ 
with the specific affix of ‘ sivalensis.’ 
I can only hope that on some future occasion we may be fortunate enough to 
come across the cranium of this most interesting relic of the past, when we shall 
be able with some approach to certainty to assign to it its exact affinities which 
with our present meagre specimens we can only vaguely guess at. We can only 
say that there lived in the Siwalik period of India, a huge anthropoid ape 
intermediate in size between the orang and the gorilla,, the males and females 
of which were provided with canines exceeding in size the other teeth, and that 
those of the former bore about the same proportion to those of the latter as we 
find prevailing in the living anthropoid apes. Further, in the form of its teeth, 
this ape was nearest to the chimpanzee; but in the points in which it differed 
from that species, it shows great resemblances to the teeth of man. 
I wdll conclude this notice with a few general considerations regarding the 
pa.st and present distribution of the anthropoid apes. If this distribution in time 
and .space be tabulated, as is done in the accompanjdng note,^ it will, I think,-be 
apparent that such living and fossil anthropoid apes as we are now acquainted with 
are merely a few from a large number of species which once existed on the earth. 
Troglodytes 
Miocene, 
Pliocene. 
Recent. 
W. Africa. 
Simla 
... 
Borneo and Suma¬ 
I‘al(Bop'fthecns ... 
Dryopdliecus 
Bylohates 
W. Europe. 
N. India. 
tra. 
Mat-iya, As,sam, 
riiopithecus (—HyJoiafes 1) 
\V. Europe. 
and China. 
