42 
Records of the Geological Survey of India. 
[VOL. XII. 
yientapotamicB from Sind, noticed at page 75 of the last volume of the “ Records ”, 
and which agrees so exactly, as regards dimensions, with the base of the corre¬ 
sponding tooth in the lower jaw of D. mdicivm from Perim Island represented in 
fig. 6 of plate 35 of the “ Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis,” that I have considered 
it to belong to that species. 
The tooth is considerably worn, and carries three equal sized transverse 
ridges, which show no sign of a median longitudinal division, which, with the 
bluntness of the i-idges, shows that the tooth did not belong to a Trilopliodoni 
Mastodon. The tooth is relatively narrow in proportion to its length, which 
shows that it belongs to the lower jaw, while the greater elevation of the inner 
side of the ridges shows that it belonged to the left side. On the outer and 
posterior sides of the tooth there is a large thick cingulum. 
I have given below the dimensions of this tooth, together with those of the 
corresponding tooth of I), giganteum in the large Eppelsheim cranium, and of the 
corresponding tooth in the above-mentioned jaw of D. pentapotamice :— 
New tooth. 
-D. giganteum. 
D. pentapotamla. 
Length of tooth 
3-9 
3-5 
2-35 
Width of 1st ridge 
25 
2-6 
1-8 
„ of 2nd „ 
2-3 
2-6 
18 
„ of 3rd „ 
2-4. 
2-2 
1-7 
The tooth is slightly larger than the corresponding molar of D. giganteum, 
in which it agi’ees with Falconer’s fragment, and is far too large to have belonged 
to B. pe7xtapotami(jB ; it is further distinguished from the same tooth in both those 
sjiecies by the presence of the large cingulum. 
If now we turn to the description of the above-mentioned jaw of B. indioum 
on page 407 of the first volume of the “ Palseontological Memoirs, we shall 
find that the dimensions of the base of the crown of the fii’st true molar are 
as follows—^length 4, width 2'8 ; these dimensions agreeing very closely with those 
of our new tooth. The latter further agrees with a fragmentary tooth of B. 
indicum from Perim Island, described by Dr. Falconer at page 397 of the first 
volume of the “ Palaeontological Memoirs,” in the great thickness of the enamel, 
which in both measm-es 0'25 inch; in B. pentapotamim and B. giganteum the 
enamel is much thinner. Although, therefore, the perfect corresponding tooth 
of B. indicum is unknown, I think on the above grounds I am justified in refer- 
ing the new tooth to that species. This identification is of great importance 
in connecting the horizon of the Perim Island and Sind rocks as I shall have 
occasion to note more fully below. 
A portion of another tooth of a large Binotherium has been received among 
a collection made by the late Dr. Verchere, which appears to have come from 
» P.397. 
