part 3.] Lydekker : Fossil Mammalian Fauna of India and Burma. 
105 
teeth have a somewhat rugose enamel, and I can only suppose that in a hasty examination Dr. 
Falconer, who says that at the time of cataloguing them he had no means of making a comparison 
at hand, was led away by this character into placing them under the head of Camelopardalis. 
No teeth have therefore been found which are referable to Camelopardalis siralensis ; on turn¬ 
ing to Dr. Falconer’s remarks upon the genus, it is stated that the teeth figured in the “ Paleonto¬ 
logical Memoirs” were assigned to a second species, because they were of too large a size to have 
belonged to an animal possessing cervical vertebra; of the size of those of the original Camelopar¬ 
dalis sivalensis. 
On turning to the measurements of the vertebra of the latter species (“ Palaeontological Me¬ 
moirs. ” Vol. 1, p. 201), 1 find that the specimen was described as being one-third shorter than 
the corresponding vertebra of the living species; but ou looking at the relative dimensions of the 
centre of the vertebra of the two species, 1 find very small differences between them; indeed, some 
of the diameters of the vertebra of C. sivalensis are actually larger than those of C. giraffa. 
The following measurements are taken from Falconer’s table : — 
Vertical diameter of anterior articulating surface of centrum 
C. sivalensis. 
1*9 
C. giraffa. 
1*55 
Transverse ditto ditto 
1*4 
1*6 
Length of post-zygapophysis 
1*6 
1*2 
Width of disc ... ... ... 
l’O 
0*8 
Length of pre-zygapophysia 
1*2 
0*85 
Vertical diameter of posterior articulating cup of centrum 
... 20 
2*3 
From the above measurements it will be seen that the anterior articulating hall of the centrum 
has an area nearly equal in the two species; the diameter of the posterior cup of the vertebra 
of the recent species is rather the larger of the two, but this is caused by a less development of the 
rim in the fossil specimen. Both of the zygapophyses present a considerably larger area in the fossil 
than in the recent specimen ; and since their surfaces are the main aids in coun ecting the different 
vertebra, it is clear that the neck of the fossil species was at the least equally strong with that of 
tire living species, and was therefore capable of supporting a head and teeth as large as those of the 
latter. 
Moreover, from its shortness and consequent absence of the groat leverage which occurs in the 
living species, the neck of the fossil species might well bear even a still larger head and teeth than 
those of the living species. 
From the above arguments I am perfectly convinced that Falconer’s second species —Camelo. 
pardalis affinis— founded upon the teeth alone, should be abolished, and both teeth and vertebra 
assigned to Camelopardalis sivalensis. 
Camelopardalis sivalensis, according to this view, was an animal furnished with molar teeth 
(and probably with a cranium) of the same size as those of the living Camelopardalis giraffa; its 
neck, however, was one-third shorter than that of the latter ; it probably took its origin from some 
short-necked form allied to Sivatherium ; while tho loug neck of the recent species is, as we should 
naturally expect, a specialized character of quite modern origiu. 
As according to the above view we have only one species of Shvalik giraffe, tho rarity of the 
molars, though still very remarkble, is not so noticeable as if there had been two species. 
Note on Merycopotamus. 
M. Nanus, hale. This species was added to the list of Indian Fossil Mammalia by Dr. Falconer 
on the evidence of several molar teeth and one premolar from Kushalghar near Attock 
(“ Palmontological Memoirs,” Vol. I, p. 416). 
Lately, on looking over the collection containing these specimens, I Was surprised to find that 
the molar teeth ascribed to this species do not really belong to the genus Merycopotamus at all, 
but to the genus Dorcatherium : (on a hasty examination it would he possible to mistake the one 
or the other.) 
