400 THE NATURAL HISTORY EEYIEW. 



species in Britain. The first of these, and the most common, is the 

 ^Rhinoceros tichorhinus of Cuvier, described by Pallas in the year 

 1768,* determined by Cuvier in 1812,'|" and still more accurately by 

 de Christol in 1835,+ ranges through France, Germany, and Eussia, 

 along with the Mammoth from the Pyrenees to the high northern 

 latitudes of Asia. Brandt in the year 1849 published an exhaustive 

 account of this species, in the St. Petersburgh§ Transactions, having 

 at his command the vast collections made by the Bussian Grovern- 

 ment. In a previous number of this Beview,|| its dentition has been 

 defined after Brandt's method. The tichorhme species has indeed 

 a literature of its own, more complete perhaps than that of any 

 other fossil mammal. 



The second species — the leptorhine — on the other hand, is involved 

 in the greatest confusion, arising from the fact that the leptorhine of 

 Professor Owen,^ is not the same as that of Baron Cvivier. Its his- 

 tory is very remarkable. Some time before the publication of the 

 first edition of the '*Ossemens Possiles" in 1812, Baron Cuvier 

 received the drawing of a head of Ehinoceros from the Val d'Arno, 

 in which the osseous septum between the nares, so characteristic of 

 the tichorhine species, was absent. The proportions also of the skull, 

 and the form of the lower jaws from the same deposit, and the 

 slenderness of the bones, led him to found a new species which he 

 named from the supposed absence of the septum, B. leptoi^liinus** or 

 " Bhinoceros a narines non cloissonees.'^ In 1835, M. de Christol, on 

 the examination of careful drawings of the same skull, came to the 

 conclusion that it belonged to the tichorhine species, and accounted 

 for the absence of the bony septum by the supposition that it had 

 been removed by violence. The drawings sent by Professor Cortesi to 

 Cuvier, he proved to have been incorrect, ff The bones of Bhinoceros 

 found in the same deposit, he ascribed to his species JR. Qnegarhinus. 

 "Whether or no the skull in question belongs to B. tichorhinus or B. 

 megarhinus, or to B. JEtruscus of Dr. Falconer, I have no opportunity 

 of judging: but M. de Christol has satisfactorily proved that it is not 



* Nov. Comment. Acad. Petropol. Tom. xiii. p. 436. 



f Oss. Foss. Tom. ii. Art. Ehinoceros. % Annales de Sc. Nat. 1835. 



§ Mem. Acad. St. Petersb. 6 Series, Tom. vii. || 1863, p. 552. 



^ British Fossil Mammals. 8vo. 356-382. ** Op. cit. p. 110. 



tt Oss. Foss. in. edit. 1825. Tom. ii. p. 71. 



