18 CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALAONTOLOGY 
proach those in M1, the type of Sivapithecus orientalis Pilgrim (= S. 
indicus), but it differs markedly from that type in the sharp lingual cleft be- 
tween the proto- and hypocone, the more brachyodont look of the whole 
crown, and the lesser convergence of its labial and lingual cusps toward the 
midline. 
A curiously subhuman look is imparted to it by the incipient Carabelli 
cusp, the vestigial parastyle, the protoconule projecting on the mesial 
border, the fovesz anterior and posterior, and the general configuration of its 
cusps. 
This tooth occludes well with the first and second lower molars of a cast 
of Ind. Mus. D 176, the mandible which was chosen by Pilgrim as the 
“type” of Sivapithecus indicus but which is nevertheless not the real holo- 
type first designated by him, which is a second lower molar. 
The second “type” of Sivapithecus indicus is an imperfect right ramus 
containing P4, MI, M2. The second lower molar of this “Sivapithecus 
wmdicus” is much smaller than that of the type of S. himalayensis and has 
a greater breadth index and lower, more sharply convex cusps. Repeated 
comparisons of this cast with the types of Dryopithecus cautleyt, 
D. fricke, and S. himalayensis suggest that the specimen belongs in the 
genus Sivapithecus, that it is a specialized offshoot beyond sivalensis and 
not far below fricke, but not nearly as large as the true indicus. 
To the same species we are also tentatively referring No. 615 (Y.P.M. 
13831), a fragment of a right corpus mandibule containing the partly 
broken crowns of MI and M2. So far as preserved, the fragment closely 
resembles the cast of the lower jaw of Stvapithecus indicus (Ind. Mus. 
D 177), especially in the low, strongly convex cusps, the position of the 
roots, the slight development and medial position of the hypoconulid of 
MI, and the general proportions of the basal horizontal section of the 
neck of M2. 
As thus understood by us, “Stvamthecus cf. indicus” differs from the typi- 
cal S. indicus in the sharp convexity and lowness of the cusps of the lower 
molars and in the “rounded squarish” rather than oblong plan of M2. 
Nevertheless, so great is the range of individual variation in modern anthro- 
poids that we are unwilling to propose a new specific name for these dif- 
ferences. 
Sivapithecus (?) cf. darwini (Abel) 
(Plate 3, figures 4, A) 
Holotype—A third left lower molar loaned by the Prince of Wales College 
Museum, Jammu. 
aes horizon and locality—Dal Sar, Ramnagar, Jammu, uppermost 
injl. 
Specific characters—The third lower molar differs from that of Siva- 
pithecus himalayensis in being notably shorter, with labially protruding 
cusp bases of protoconid and hypoconid; cusps convergent at top, as in 
Sivapithecus indicus; approaches M8 of S. sivalensis, but notably shorter. 
This specimen (pl. 3, figs. 4, A), while closely approaching the type M3 
of Dryomthecus darwinit Abel, is from the upper Chinji (uppermost Mio- 
cene) and therefore somewhat younger than its European analogue, which 
is from Neudorf an der March (Czechoslovakia), a part of the “Vienna 
Basin,’ and is of Tortonian (upper middle Miocene) age. 
