FOSSIL ANTHROPOIDS FROM INDIA 21 
cusps are undoubtedly flatter than those of Sivapithecus sivalensis and 
reference to that genus is improbable. This tooth is widely different from 
the true Dryopithecus of Europe. 
The much greater wear and erosion of No. 607 as compared with the 
type of Sugrivapithecus salmontanus conceals resemblance. Nevertheless, 
if placed in the empty alveolus the lingual curve of the tooth conforms to 
that of the alveolar border, and on the buccal side the three main cusps 
take much the same relations as do those of M2. The extreme wear has 
flattened the transverse ridges of the metaconid, hypoconid, and hypo- 
conulid. It is, however, probably too small for this species. It is not large 
enough to fit into the empty alveolus of Sugrivamthecus salmontanus; it 
is 2 mm. too short and much lower-crowned, and the cusps appear to be less 
swollen and convergent at the tips, possibly owing to the great wear of this 
tooth. It is, however, an M8 of apparently just the right size and propor- 
tions to go with the known MI and M2 of the type of Sugrivapithecus 
gregoryt Lewis, to which species we here refer it. 
Ramapithecus cf. brevirostris (Lewis) 
(Plates 2, figure 3; 8A—C) 
Preliminary notice of new man-like apes from India. Amer. Jour. Sci., vol. 27, 
162, March 1934. 
New Material—No. 618, front part of mandible including right ramus 
(horizontal) with P3-4, MI-2, and alveoli of C1, I1-2. 
This specimen (pl. 2, fig. 3; pl. 8A-C) is important for several reasons. 
Allowing for differences of wear, it approaches in individual dimensions what 
may be expected in the hitherto unknown lower teeth of Ramapithecus 
brevirosiris Lewis, but the teeth are somewhat too narrow and the P3 has 
its long axis too anteroposteriorly oriented to fulfill completely the require- 
ments of a lower dentition of the genotype. It differs in both stage and 
type of wear as compared with the holotype of R. brevirostris. It is not 
only a much older animal, but the lower cheek teeth are worn transversely 
into a nearly flat surface without projecting lingual cusps, whereas the holo- 
type before mentioned leads one to expect that even in its greatly worn 
lower teeth the wear would have been more pronounced on the outer cusps 
than on the inner. 
Nevertheless, the new ramus occludes quite well with the holotype of 
R. brevirostris and may well represent a member of this species entirely 
within the specific range of variation. 
In the type palate all the teeth show a “morphological” approach to 
No. 617, Stvayithecus sivalensis, but are much smaller and are more worn. 
Both differ widely from Dryopithecus germanicus in markedly less pos- 
terior projection of the hypocone, with very small fovea posterior and less 
sharply defined transverse crests. 
The remarkably small lower cheek teeth are narrower than those of 
Bramapithecus thorper, but they have a breadth index higher than that of 
Sugrivapithecus; M2 is markedly narrower than that of Sivapithecus siva- 
lensis. The specimen is important because it carries the lower border of 
the mandible to and beyond the midline and thus affords data for recon- 
structing the opposite side. The jaw is much deeper in the symphyseal 
region than beneath the molars. The symphyseal region approaches that 
of Sugrivapithecus salmontanus, but lacks a lingual torus even though 
very old. 
