CAVICORNIA. 363 
incisive part. These qualities are easily recognizable in the table of dimensions 
above. It is clear enough that the present lower jaw belongs, not to a buffalo, 
but to a large taurine animal like the European urus. 
The well-preserved basioccipital bone shows equally well a marked difference 
between buffalo and taurus (see plate 74, figs. 2-3). In the buffalo it approaches 
more the type of Ovzs, is rather short, and the tubercula pharyngee predominate 
vis-a-vis the upper protuberances. In regard to size, the basioccipital of Anau 
corresponds very exactly with that of the skulls of Bos primigentus of the British 
Museum. 
Lastly, the fragment of a horn-core (plate 78, fig. 2) denotes a round-horned 
animal and not a bovid with flat horns of quadrangular or triangular cross-section. 
This fragment represents the basal part of a left horn-core with some frontal 
pieces attached. Its surface is granulous, therefore it seems to have belonged to 
an adult individual. The core is at the base filled with some spongy bone sub- 
stance, which gives the impression that it must have belonged to a gigantic indi- 
vidual with enormous horns, like those found by Abbé David in the Chinese loess 
near Suen-hua-fu. This is corroborated by the measurements compared with 
those of several other horn-cores of Bos namadicus and Bos primigenius, which 
are remarkable for their size. 
It is, therefore, proved beyond doubt that a large taurine animal furnished 
the bones in question, and in the light of our researches concerning the wild bovine 
animals of these regions, it must certainly have been the Bos namadicus Falconer 
& Cautley, 7. e., the Asiatic urus. 
Of the bovine group, there remain to be considered only the Taurina proper 
and the Protaurina, as well as the bison and yak. “Here, too, the teeth offer an 
easy means of discrimination. According to Rtitimeyer* (1): “Bison and yak 
have become so sharply characterized that their teeth can be distinguished from 
those of Taurus, Bubalus, and of the Bibovina (Protaurus mihi) through the 
weakest development of the accessory columns.”’ 
This difference is more clearly shown on plate 74. It will be seen from fig. 4 
that in this specimen of Pephagus grunniens from Nepal, male, about 6 years 
of age, the construction of the teeth is very simple. It is No. 611a; 5ab 28, 
No. 152, British Museum. 
On the other hand, fig. 5, Bos namadicus (specimen 36672), called by Riitimeyer 
Bos paleogaurus (Paleontological Gallery, British Museum); fig. 6, Bos primi- 
genius Bojanus, Pleistocene, Grays (Essex) (No. 21296, 21647, Paleont. Gal., 
British Museum); fig. 7, a molar series from Anau; fig. 8, Bos taurus macroceros, 
long-horned cattle brought from Nepal by Hodgson, 1848 (?) (British Museum) 
(skull, plate 82, fig. 1); fig. 9, Bos frontalis Evans, from Assam (British Museum) ; 
fig. 10, Bubalus occipitalis Falconer (Probubalus triquetricornis Rtitimeyer, No. 
16173, Paleont. Gal., British Museum) show more and different plications of the 
enamel-folds. 

* Versuch einer Natiirlichen Geschichte des Rindes, 1 Abteilung, p. 91. 
