Falcojier's Pa/a:o?ito/ogical Memoirs 235 



also, we believe that it represents the real state of the case, and 

 that these names ought to be universally adopted with the ex- 

 ception, perhaps, of the last species. For although there can be 

 no doubt of the priority of Blumenbach's appellation, it would 

 now be extremely inconvenient to employ it in place of that which 

 has gained, it may be said, universal adoption. Right must some 

 times yield to might. 



The above arrangement was proposed, it would seem, by Dr 

 Falconer in the year 1862, in letters to his friends M. Lartet and 

 Colonel Wood, and it will thus be seen that before that date he 

 had satisfied himself : — i. That no more than 7^//;' pliocene and 

 post-pliocene species of Rhinoceros could be recognised, two of 

 which had been clearly distinguished since the time of Cuvier, 

 whilst one had been established altogether by himself, and 

 another first clearly defined and rescued by him from a confused 

 synonymy. In M. Lartet's interesting paper, just referred to, 

 the same classification is followed and the same synonomy 

 adopted, but with one very important and curious difference 

 with regard to the species last referred to. M. Lartet regards 

 R. hemitcechus as synonymous amongst others with R. merckii 

 of Kaup. Of the grounds upon which this opinion is based, 

 we are not at present fully aware, although they are doubtless 

 contained in an as yet unpublished communication read before 

 the Geological Society of France in 1867. It is, therefore, with 

 the greatest hesitation that we venture to express an opinion 

 opposed to that of the distinguished French Palaeontologist. 

 Our reason, however, is simple, yet one which it seems difficult 

 to get over. In the British Museum there are two or three 

 sets of casts of three molar teeth of Rhinoceros, which were 

 prepared, and presented to the Museum by Dr Kaup himself, 

 as typical representatives, it would seem, of his R. merckii, and it 

 is not improbable that these casts were taken from the teeth of the 

 original R. kirchbergense of Jager. They must, in any case, be 

 taken to represent the true R. merckii of Dr Kaup. Now these 

 teeth are manifestly those of a species identical with the larger of 

 the Grays Thurrock forms, and consequently, in all probability, 

 with the R. megarhinus, which M. Christol from Montpelier and the 

 best authorities coincide in regarding as the same with the 

 Grays Thurrock form, which is termed by Mr Boyd Dawkins 

 R. megarhinus. Moreover, Dr Falconer (p. 309) remarks that 

 he had carefully examined at Stuttgart the materials on which 

 Kaup and Jiiger's R. merckii was founded, and had satisfied himself 



