376 RHINOCEROS. 
discovery that the molars of the Rhinoceros from Kirch- 
berg belonged to a distinct species which had already 
received its appropriate name ; and he therefore proposes 
to denominate it ‘“ Rhinoceros Kirchbergense”* (sic, p. 
179). 
Dr. Kaup has given a reduced and reversed view of the 
same molar tooth in his ‘ Akten der Urwelt,’ Svo., 1841, 
taf. i., fig. 4; he equally appreciates the distinction of its 
structure from the corresponding molars of the Rhino- 
ceros tichorhinus, and at the same time recognizes its speci- 
fic identity with the molars from Crozes. The means of 
identifying it with the hd. leptorhinus were equally want- 
ing to the Palzontologist of Darmstadt, who, notwith- 
standing a name had been already attached to the species 
by Professor Jager, proposes to call it Rhinoceros Merckii. 
The last molar tooth of the left side, which is retained 
in a portion of the upper jaw from the fresh-water deposits 
at Clacton, closely resembles the corresponding less worn 
molar of the right side from Kirchberg, figured by Pro- 
fessor Jager in the work cited, pl. xvi., fig. 32, and, like 
it, differs from the corresponding tooth of the Lh. ticho- 
Fossiles,’ tom. ii. pt. 1. pl. vi. fig. 5, in which the enamel island is formed by 
the insulation of one lobe of the expanded termination of the valley (6), is thus 
described : ‘* On y voit aussi trés-bien la fossette, résultant de union du crochet 
postérieur avec la colline antérieure, et l’echancrure postérieure commence a étre 
cernée.”—P. 57. The molar tooth of the leptorhine Rhinoceros, figured in pl. 
xill. fig. 4, in which the enamel island is due to the insulation of the entire un- 
expanded end of the valley (4), is thus described, “ Le trou antérieure y est deja 
distinct par l’union du crochet de la colline postérieure ayec la colline antérieure, 
mais l’echancrure postérieure n’y est point encore cernée.”—Ib. p. 58. 
* The xomina trivialia, formed by latinizing German names of individuals 
or places, grate harshly upon the ear. One regrets the obligation to adopt 
such a name as Schleiermacheri in place of megarhinus, but the law of 
priority is absolute, With regard to names derived from particular localities, 
they are obnoxious to the graver objection of indicating very partially and im- 
perfectly the geographical range of the extinct species to which they are 
applied. 
