RHINOCEROS LEPTORHINUS. 359 
personally inspected or compared M. Cortesi’s fossil, ex- 
pects too much when he demands the entire suppression 
of the Rhinoceros leptorhinus from the catalogue of extinct 
species. 
I shall be able, indeed, to show that the partial bony 
septum, and its confluence with the extremities of the 
nasal bones, inferred by M. Christol to exist in the 
skull of the Rhinoceros at Milan, do not, of themselves, 
give proofs of its identity with the species called Lh. 
tichorhinus ; and although, in the absence of direct in- 
spection of the fossil in question, I cannot presume to 
question the accuracy of M. Christol’s determination of 
it, I may observe that the points above cited, upon which 
he chiefly grounds his opinion, are not incompatible with 
the characters which I have ascertained to belong to the 
skull of the Rhinoceros leptorhinus. 
Before adverting to these, I shall first adduce evidence 
of the existence, in British fresh-water newer-pliocene 
deposits, of a Rhinoceros, having the same characters of 
the lower jaw and teeth which Cuvier has ascribed to 
his Rhinoceros leptorhinus. 
The specimens described and figured in the ‘Ossemens 
Fossiles, tom. cit. pl. ix., figs. 8 and 9, were discovered 
in Tuscany, and are the most common kind of Rhino- 
ceros Jaws in that part of Italy, where, however, the 
lower Jaw of the Rhinoceros tichorhinus has likewise been 
found. From this the jaw of the Rh. leptorhinus ditters 
“by the continuation of the series of molar teeth close to 
the anterior end of the jaw, which is short and not pro- 
longed into a prominence, or expanded part ;” and these 
characters Cuvier correctly cites as evidence of the close 
resemblance of the leptorhine Rhinoceros to the two-horned 
species of the Cape. (Tom. cit. p. 72.) The fossil speci- 
