part 2.] lydeklcer: New or rare Mammals from the Siwalih. 
79 
with those of the European A. magnum, hut are of very much smaller size (they are unlike 
those of the smaller species from Rochette). The dimensions of the specimen are as 
follows:— 
Length of last molar 
Inch 
... -92 
Width of ditto 
... *44 
Length of penultimate molars 
... *6 
Width of ditto 
... *42 
Depth of jaw (broken) ... 
... 
... -95 
Thickness of ditto 
... *5 
Although these teeth belonged to an animal of about the same size as Cheeromeryx, 
they cannot he referred to that genus, as they present no generic points of difference from 
the teeth of the European species of Anthracotherium, which we should expect to occur in 
the lower molars of Cheeromeryx. The only other mention of Anthracotherium among 
Indian Tertiary Mammalia is given in Dr. Falconer’s paper on the Perim Island fossils 
(Palaeontological Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 395), where certain teeth sent to the Asiatic Society 
of Bengal were doubtfully referred by the late Mr. James Prinsep to the genus Anthra - 
collierium; I have no means of knowing whether or not this identification was correct, as 
the specimens seem to have been lost. 
Since publishing some notes on the osteology of the allied genus Meryeopotamus, in 
the ninth volume of the Records of the Geological Survey of India (page 144), I have 
had the opportunity of seeing a table of descent of the genera of the Ungulata published 
by Professor Ivowalevsky in the twelfth volume of the German “ Palseontographica,” after the 
perusal of which I am led to make a few additional remarks on the affinities of the genus 
Meryeopotamus and its allies. 
In a table which I have published in the “ Palmontologia Indica” (Ser. X—2, Yol. I—2, 
p. 60), I have placed the genus Meryeopotamus provisionally in the family Anthraeotlieridce, 
remarking that the genus presents points of affinity in the form of its teeth (selenodont) 
to Anthracotherium and Hyopotamus, and in the form of its lower jaw to Hippopotamus; 
the same conclusion was intended to have been given in the above-quoted paper for the 
Records, only by an unfortunate slip the words Hippopotamid<e and Anthraeotlieridce 
have been transposed in the twelfth line from the bottom of page 153. The close connec¬ 
tion of Meryeopotamus with Hippopotamus is noticed by Professor Huxley, who states in 
his “ Anatomy of Vertebrated Animals” (Ed. 1871, p. 375) that this animal “ appears to 
have been a Hippopotami!, with upper molars having a quadri-crescentic, ruminant-like 
pattern.” 
Reverting now to Professor Ivowalevsky’s table of affinity, we find that the genera 
Anthracotherium , Hyopotamus, and their allies, are supposed to have taken their origin 
from some more generalised type of Hyopotamoid animals in the lower Eocene period, 
which common stock also gave origin to the more modern group of Ruminants. At this 
lower Eocene period, according to Professor ivowalevsky, the primitive Artioductyla ( Pari - 
digitata) had already differentiated into the two groups of Selenoclonta and Bunodonia, 
the early liyopotamoids being a lateral off-shoot of the first group ; these two groups have 
since that time pursued separate courses of evolution, and have had no connection one 
with the other. The genus Hippopotamus took origin from a lateral off-shoot of the 
Bunodonta; this genus, therefore, which has a typical hunodont dentition, can have had 
no direct connection with the Hyopotamoid stock since the early Eocene period. 
