RHINOCEROS LEPTORHINUS. 367 
convex transversely, concave longitudinally, with the free 
lateral margins bent down. The 
Fig. 138. 
short septum is firmly anchy- 
losed,* and gradually increases 
in thickness to the anterior de- 
flected extremities of the nasal 
platform, where the appearance 
of the fractured surface of the 
confluent bones indicates that, 
when entire, they had been united 
by continuous ossification to the 
intermaxillaries, as in the Rhino- 
ceros tichorhinus.t Very clear 
evidence of the distinction of the 
two species is obtained by com- 
paring the upper surfaces of 
iv skulls : Under surface of nasal bones of 
their skulls ; and the reader Rhinoceros leptorhinus. % nat. 
the size. Clacton. 
may pursue same com- 
parison by means of the subjoined figure (139), and the 
* This fact shows that the limited extent of the bony septum in the present 
cranium is not a consequence of immature age ; not only the size of the skull, 
but the obliteration of the cranial sutures, proves it to have belonged at least to 
a fully mature individual. In the tichorhine Rhinoceros the bony septum is 
not anchylosed to the nasal platform until the animal has quite attained its 
maturity. In the young but full-grown specimen discovered in the frozen sand 
at Viloui, the bony septum was still free at its upper border. Pallas says, “ Os 
scutiforme, quod cornu nasalis firmamentum prestat cum subjecto fulcro osseo, 
crassissimo vomeri comparando nondum evaluit ; sed harmonia tuberculosa totius 
plani, ut epiphyses ossium juniorum solent, inarticulatur.”” Novi Comment. Pe- 
tropol. xvii. (1773), p. 590. 
+ When I first saw this specimen at Stanway during a tour of inspection of collec- 
tions of British Fossils, preparatory to drawing up the Report on that subject for 
the British Association, I was induced, from the prevalent belief in the osseous 
septum anchylosed to the nasal bones as the peculiar characteristic of the Rhino- 
ceros tichorhinus, to refer the Clacton cranium with those characters to that 
species ; this error in the ‘ Reports of the British Association,’ 8vo., 1843, p. 
222, I am now able to correct. 
