380 RHINOCEROS. 
is noticed in the addition to the paragraph on that species in 
the S8vo. edition of the ‘Ossemens Fossiles, tom. iil., p. 
138: I am not disposed, however, to place much stress 
upon this as a specific character. 
Mr. Parkinson appears to have been the first to recog- 
nize remains of the Rhinoceros in the formations on the 
Essex-coast. He says:—‘‘ From several fragments of 
bones, which I met with in the Essex bank, I was led to 
suppose that the remains of some other very large animal, 
besides those of the Elephant and Elk, had been there 
imbedded.” —‘ Organic Remains, vol. ii. p. 371. The 
upper part of an os femoris, which differed from that 
of any animal with whose skeleton Mr. Parkinson was 
acquainted, induced him to be more particular in his re- 
search, and led to his discovery of the tooth of the 
Rhinoceros, which he has represented in Plate xxi. fig. 3. 
(op. cit. p. 372.) “* This tooth,” he proceeds to say, ‘is 
an upper molar of the left side, is pretty much worn, and 
must have belonged to a small animal, since it is not one 
half the size of the teeth which are found at Chartham.” 
The figure shows all the essential characters of the upper 
molars of the Rhinoceros leptorhinus. 
A part of a fossil lower jaw, discovered in the tertiary 
marine deposits of Monte Blancano, near Bologna, which 
had obtained notoriety through Professor Monti’s descrip- 
tion of it, in 1719, as part of the skull of a Morse, was 
not only proved by Cuvier to be part of a Rhinoceros, 
but the great Anatomist congratulated himself on being 
able to determine, by the prominent symphysis, that it had 
belonged to the Rhinoceros tichorhinus. ‘This discovery,” 
he remarks, “is one of great importance, since it shows 
that the two species” (the tichorhine and Jeptorhine) ‘“ had 
inhabited Italy,” op. cit. p. 143. 
