368 RHINOCEROS. 
corresponding view of the 
skull of the Rh. ticho- 
rhinus, given by Cuvier in 
the ‘ Ossemens Fossiles,’ 
4to., 1823, tom. u1., pl. 
Ixxix.; hoe. 
So compared, the Clac- 
ton specimen will be seen 
to be narrower in propor- 
tion to its length, espe- 
cially at the cerebral and 
nasal regions: the con- 
fluent nasal bones (7) are 
not only more slender, 
but are more attenuated 
anteriorly, and thus vindi- 
cate the appropriateness 
of the name /eptorhinus 
originally applied to the 
present species by its first 
discoverer.* The inter- 
orbital surface (f) for 
the frontal horn is not 
only less elevated, but is 
much less rugose, and is 
separated by a smooth 
space of some extent 
Upper surface of the skull of Rhinoceros from that (7) for the 
leptorhinus. 4 nat.size. Clacton, ~ 
* The French name, Rhinoceros & narines non cloisonnées, more commonly 
applied by Cuvier to this species, is now proyed to be inapplicable ; the more 
accurate term would be a narines demi-cloisonnécs; but, as the nasal bones 
notwithstanding their partial osseous supporting wall, are actually more slender 
than those of the Rh. tichorhinus, there is no objection to the Latin nomen triviale 
leptorhinus, and every reason for retaining it. 
