FOSSIL ANTHROPOIDS FROM INDIA 13 
The “slender” upper canine (K 23/212) has a breadth index of 68.8, 
while the wide “premolariform” upper canines (K 29/466) have indices of 
94.5 and 93.7 respectively. The “massive” upper canine (K 22/448, pl. 2, 
figs. 2a, 26) has an index of 72; that is not much wider relatively than the 
“slender” upper canine. The tusklike canine of the type of Sivapithecus 
orientalis has an intermediate index, 83.7. Corresponding indices based on 
Hellman’s measurements of twenty-eight female orangs give a range from 
45 to 1385, with an average of 84.6. 
The lower canines, partly preserved in the types of pilgrimi and cautley, 
are much wider labio-lingually than the upper, as in anthropoids generally. 
The differences in breadth index (see table 2) between Sivapithecus siva- 
lensis, Dryoyithecus fontani, and Sivapithecus indicus, ranging from 120 to 
135, are insignificant when compared with the range in recent orangs 
(9° 45-160, ¢ 85-190). Therefore the taxonomic value of the dimensions 
and proportions of the lower canines, so far as now available, is extremely 
dubious. 
P3 right and left (No. 617) are associated with M1, M2, M38, all from the 
Nagri formation. The right and left third upper premolars show marked 
agreement with each other in form and number of cusps, contour of teeth 
and crown as a whole, together with differences in detail. On the right side 
there are two small complete cross ridges (Leisten of Remane) between the 
outer and inner cusps, converting the enclosed area into a deep pit. On the 
left side the posterior ridge is vestigial and the ridge does not reach across 
to the inner cusp, leaving a large central fossa instead of a small pit. These 
differences might at first sight be mistaken for specific differences. Remane 
(1921) laid great stress on the presence or absence of such accessory 
Leisten in the upper premolars. Very probably, however, these are opposites 
of the same individual. In other words, individual variability must be taken 
into account in the future classification of Siwalik and modern anthropoids. 
Comparison of upper and lower molars of Sivapithecus swalensis with 
those of European species of Dryopithecus—Next arises the question: what 
are the significant differences between the Siwalik forms here referred to 
Sivapithecus and the European forms named Dryopithecus fontana and 
D. germamcus? 
The upper molars of D. fontani and D. germanicus are known only from 
three or four unassociated specimens, of which the leading specimen may 
be either an M2 or an M8. Also the principal specimen of germanicus 
(Melchingen) is an unerupted crown lacking the basal portion, and none 
of the specimens present the neck and roots. Moreover, the dimensions 
published by Harlé, Remane, and Hrdlitka of the molars named above 
(M1 or M2) show considerable discrepancy, their breadth indices as given 
indicating different methods of measurement. 
Nevertheless a careful comparison of the measurements, descriptions, fig- 
ures, and casts, and of stereoscopic photographs by McGregor of the 
European Dryopithecus with the corresponding Indian teeth indicates the 
following differences between them: 
Dryopithecus germanicus M2 Sivapithecus sivalensis M2 
ap. CHP. br. ind. ap. He, Lose, TAX, 
Schlosser ........ 10.7 11.3 105.6 ]. M2 11.6 13.7 118 K 22/466 
Eindlickay neuen: HOG TO ORS r. M2 114 136 119 No. 617 
Castirsiie tes coatsene 10.8 11.4 105.6 Sivapithecus orientalis M2 
Sivapithecus “darwint”? M2 ap. tr. br. ind. 
ap. HP, br. ind. IEMIEARION Soaodo 12.8 14.2 111 
Glaessner ........ 12.0 13.6 113.3 12.7 15.5 122 
