OCR Text |
Show 1891-1 DR' C- J" FORSYTH MAJOR ON FOSSIL GIRAFFID.E. 321 4. SIVATHERIUM ; and 5. HYDASPITHERIUM l. As is well known, the Siwaliks have yielded the remains of and Hydaspitherium, about the relations of which there has been a good deal of discussion. I have to recall to mind that Dr. Murie placed the Sivathere in a distinct family, as showing affinities, in his opinion, with several distinct groups of ruminants, but being on the whole most nearly allied to Antilocapra2. These views as well as those of Rutimeyer have been opposed by Lydekker, who groups the Sivathere aud its allies (Hydaspitherium and Bramatherium) in the same family as the Giraffe, basing his opinion especially on the similarity of the molar teeth, as well as on the transition in the bones of the limbs and neck from Sivatherium to the Giraffe, and on some other characters of minor importance 3. I find it necessary to enter into some detail regarding the views propounded by Riitimeyer4, who is most positive in his assertion as to Hydaspitherium, denying on the one hand that it has any relation whatever with the Giraffe, and on the other hand insisting strongly on its affinities with the Damalis group amongst the Antelopes. The form of the forehead, as well as the implantation of the horns, according to Rutimeyer correspond most of all with Damalis and Alcelaphus. The conformation of the occiput is said to find its nearest analogue in Alcelaphus and especially in A. tor a. On the whole the structure of the cranium of Hydaspitherium is characterized as an abbreviation of the Damalis skull. Even if we admit that in Hydaspitherium the parietal region be as narrow and as much displaced backwards as in some members of the Damalis group (D. tora, caama, &c), there would be no sufficient grounds for referring it to these Antelopes, as this same extreme conformation is found not only in the skulls of some species of Damalis, but is characteristic besides of Gonnochcetes, of several Bovines, and even of male adult skulls of some Ovines, such as Ovis argali, O.polii, and 0. nahoor. There is a fossil form, too, found in Samos, Criotherium, in which the parietal region is also reduced to a very the narrow zone, behind and under the horn-cores ; the distinctness, however, of this form from Damalis can be at once determined. Moreover, the comparison of the Hydaspitherium skull with those of the Damalis seems to me unjustifiable for other reasons. Riitimeyer starts from the assumption that the parietal region begins in the Hydaspitherium, as is generally the case in Ruminants, nearly behind the horn-cores-in other words, that the horn-cores are limited to the 1 I am obliged to postpone my remarks on Bramatherium, having not yet had the opportunity of examining the skull from Perim Island which is preserved in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. 2 Geol. Mag. vol. viii. 1871, pis. xii. & xiii.-Tbe original memoir on Siva* tkerium is by Falconer and Ca utley : " Sivatherium giyantenm, a new fossil ruminant genus, from the valley of Murkunda, in the Sewalik branch of the Subhimalayan Mountains," Asiatic Researches, vol. xix. 1836, p. 1. 3 R. Lydekker, I. c. vol. ii. pp. 118-142. 4 L. Rutimeyer, ' Beitrage zu einer naturlichen Geschichte der Hirsche,' i. pp. 79-84. |