16 CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALAZONTOLOGY 
New Materral— 
Number Horizon Specimen Measurements Plate Stage 
ap. tr. of wear 
WPI, USS 5 55 oc Nagri l. ramus with 
P4-M3 P& ©9415 IV 
MI 124 118 III 
M2 14.5 a 2, figs. la, 1b lit 
NMSipl oss osG III 
616(Y.P.M. 13837) (?)Nagri I, 123 8.9 11.3 1, figs. 10a, 106 II 
]. P4 (?) fragmentary 
1. M2 1S) WS iste We, WN IE 
613(Y.P.M. 13835) Upper Chinji r. M2 AG baa A akeg, NY) 
TE, BVHEO socosce (?) Nagri r. M3 12.5 13.1 1, figs. 9a, 9b 
KG 22/ 44 See (?) Chinji TO 15y es  1OSme2atess 20520 
GLE te eae mene Upper Chinji_ r. M3 15 12+ 3) fig. 7 
The foregoing material is of exceptional importance for several reasons. 
First, the finely preserved portion of a large left ramus (corpus) mandi- 
bule (Y.P.M. 13828, pl. 3, fig. 1; pl. 6) agrees so closely with Pilgrim’s type 
of Scvapithecus himalayensis as to leave no substantial doubt as to specific 
identity. The second lower molar of this specimen also closely resembles 
Pilgrim’s holotype lower molar (Ind. Mus. D 176) of Stvapithecus indicus, 
But a the M2 of his subsequently chosen “type”? mandible (Ind. Mus. 
a7) 
An isolated crown of M3 (No. 611, pl. 3, fig. 7) from the upper Chinji 
lacks the bulbous basal portion of the crown and therefore presents a false 
appearance of narrowness (ap. 15, tr. 12+, ind. 80+). Its length is inter- 
mediate between those of chinjnensis (14.7) and himalayensis (15.8) ; 
the specimen probably belongs near to Sivapithecus himalayensis 
(= indicus). 
One of the upper molars (K 23/740), which we also refer to Sivapithecus 
indicus (pl. 7D), appears to agree generically with the type of Paleosimia 
rugosidens Pilgrim (1915, pl. 2, fig. 9), but the differences in detail, together 
with the differences in horizon (Nagri as opposed to Chinji), may justify 
specific separation. This is fortunate because the type of Palewosimia 
rugosidens is but a single upper molar, whereas the type of S. orientalis 
is a much better specimen for specific comparison. More in detail, the third 
upper molar of Stvamthecus himalayensis agrees in general morphology 
with Pilgrim’s holotype, M38 of Paleosimia rugosidens, differing chiefly in 
the following points: (1) greater emphasis of the hypocone, which forms 
a more pronounced posterointernal angle; (2) lesser emphasis of metacone; 
(3) smaller conules on posterior cingulum; (4) lesser wrinkling of entire 
crown; (5) greater emphasis of groove between protoconule and protocone; 
(6) absence of accessory ridge between crista obliqua and posterior cin- 
gulum. In size, the type of S. orentalis is distinctly large. But these 
differences are here regarded as of possibly less than, specific rank. . 
A well-preserved second upper molar (pl. 7F), No. 616 (Y.P.M. 13837), 
is close to M2 of Pilgrim’s type maxilla of Sivapithecus orientalis, but also 
occludes perfectly with M2 of the type of Dryomthecus fricke. Therefore 
himalayensis may prove to be a synonym of fricke, but as the latter is 
from a later horizon (Dhok Pathan), we may provisionally leave them as 
distinct. Nevertheless this specimen is of some importance, since it aids 
in tying in the types of fricke and himalayensis with the Scvapithecus series. 
It will be noticed that orientalis is represented only by upper teeth and 
himalayensis by lower. Notwithstanding the fact that the type upper teeth 
