part 4 .] Lydehker: Note on the genera Chceromeryx and Rhagatherium. 225 
As regards, however, the so-called rod granite erratics scattered over the country south oE 
the Tilla ridge and Rotas, the actual immediate source is in the coarse upper Siwalik 
conglomerates which are there exposed, and in which both red granite and nummulitic lime¬ 
stone pebbles occur, as I have myself seen both north of the Bunliar River and also between it 
and the Chambal range.* 
Note on the genera Chceromeryx and Rhagathebittm by R. Lydekkee, B.A., Geolo¬ 
gical Survey of India. 
At page 77 of the tenth volume of the Records I noticed a molar tooth which was 
brought from Sind, and which corresponds to the larger of Certain specimens of teeth from 
Sylhet figured under the name of Anthraeotherium silistrense in the second volume of the 
second scries of the " Transactions of the Geological Society,” and which figures are copied 
on plate LXVIII of the “ Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis.” 
The teeth so named and figured were subsequently referred by M. Pomel to a new 
genus, viz., Chceromeryx ; ho simply says at page 687 of the “ Comptes Rendus ” for 1848, 
Chceromeryx = Anthraeotherium silistrense: the assumption here being that all the teeth 
called A. silistrense belonged to Chceromeryx. 
On examining the tooth from Sind for the purpose of figuring it, I observed that it 
did not agree with M. Pomel’s description of the molars of Chceromeryx. The Sind tooth 
has five columns, and is bunodont; now, M. Pomel, in speaking of Chosromeryx, says: 
“ Molaires supe'rieures a quatre mamelons settlement, aw lieu de cinq.” It is therefore 
clear that the Sind tooth cannot he Chceromeryx. 
On again turning to the figures of the original specimens (F. A. S., plate LXVIII), I find 
that those in the Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis are more clear than the originals, and that they 
show that those teeth really belong to two distinct genera ; the single large tooth (fig. 23) 
being bunodont and having five columns on the crown, and the smaller teeth (fig. 22) being 
selenodont and with only four columns. This difference appears to have escaped M. Pomel, 
who followed Pentlaud in referring all the specimens to one species. 
The Sind tooth agrees with fig. 23, and belongs to the Anthracotheri.dev ; and seems to 
be nearest to the genus Rhagatherium, to which I am inclined to refer it. This specimen 
will he subsequently figured. 
The smaller teeth, which alone belong to Chceromeryx, seem to me to be so close to 
Merycopotamus that I cannot hut think they 7 belong to a smaller species of that genus. 
The changing of the genus of the Sind tooth does not of course interfere with the 
inference drawn as to the relation of the Sind and Sylhet deposits. 
To the Sind tooth and of course the similar specimen figured in plate LXVIIT, fig. 23, 
I propose to assign the specific name Sindiense, and for the present, at all events, to place 
it in the genus Rhagatherium. 
The specific name Silistrensis will of course apply to the selenodont teeth from Sylhet, 
whether they he subsequently referred to Chceromeryx or Merycopotamus. 
* From a private note from my colleague, Mr. Wynne, I gather that he never found these red granite boulders 
in situ in the conglomerates, whence he not unnaturally treated them as ‘erratics.’ I was more fortunate, though not 
till after loug and patient search. They are rare in situ, when compared with the number scattered about,, some 
beiug nearly 2 feet in diameter east of the Chambal range and south of Noupur (on the Bunhar River); but then 
they are very imperishable articles, and those scattered over the surface represent the waste of almost cubic miles of 
conglomerate! 
Under these circumstances, therefore, 1 do not think these red granite boulders can be termed ’ erratics ’ unless 
we fall back on the hypothesis that all of these have been ' erratics ’ dui ing a former and wholly different phase of 
geological life to that which we at present have to describe and deal with. 
