378 RHINOCEROS. 
Val dArno, and closely agreeing with the figures given 
by Cuvier in the ‘ Ossemens Fossiles,’ Rhinoceros, pl. x., 
figs. 1 and 2, confirms the accuracy of the reference of 
the Val d’Arno remains to the Lhinoceros leptorhinus. 
The humerus now before me, discovered by Mr. Brown 
at the same time and place with the leptorhine cranium, 
presents a most striking contrast with the proportions of 
the humerus of the tichorhine Rhinoceros before cited, 
from Lawford. 
I subjoin the following comparative dimensions : 
Rh, leptorhinus. Rh, tichorhinus. 
“ In... Lin. In. Lin. 
Length, from the head to the beginning of the ; 10 0 10 6 
anconal depression ; : 
Length of the deltoidal crest : , ii 8) SO 
Circumference of the proximal end c iy 0) 26 «60 
Smallest circumference of the shaft : fa) 1Oi76 
Breadth of the proximal end . : “120 9 6 
In Mr. Brown’s specimen the distal end is broken off. 
An ulna, slightly mutilated, from the till at Walton, 
near Essex, in like manner agrees in its proportions with 
that from the Val d’Arno, figured by Cuvier in the plate 
cited, fig. 13. 
The long and slender proportions of the femur of the 
Italian Rhinoceros are noticed in the ‘ Ossemens Fossiles ;’ 
the third trochanter is thrown more forward, and the great 
trochanter does not descend to join the third. 
I have had no means of applying these characters to 
the identification of the leptorhine species as an English 
fossil; the only part of the femur found associated with the 
skull and teeth of the Rh. leptorhinus at Clacton being 
the distal extremity, on the characters of which the text 
is silent, and the reduced figures inexpressive in the 
‘Ossemens Fossiles.” This fragment having been kindly 
transmitted to me by Mr. Brown, together with the other 
