17(1 MAMMALS. 



in the tertiaries of Montpeliei', l)iit is distinguished by its hirger size and the eiiormdus development 

 of its nasal bones, whence it may be supposed to have had a nose approaching the dimensions of 

 a small tnuik. It comes nearer in structure to the unicorn Eii. So>'daicus and the bicorn Rh. 

 SuMATRANUS, than any other living species. 



Remains of a species, supposed to be without a lu)rn, Rn. incisivus, Citr., have been found in the 

 middle tertiary deposits at Sansan, in the South of France ; at Ejjpelsheim, Georgensmund, and oilier 

 localities in Mid Europe. 



Multitudes of other extinct sjDecics have been described, but on so slight grounds, that De 

 Blainville was at last driven to exclaim that the authors " seemed to consider the bones as mineral 

 masses without biological or jjhysiological relations ; so that species were cieated by them, so 

 to speak, by the compass."* Species so described are mere names ; Vox ct prwtcrca nihil : and as such 

 may without impropriety be disregarded. 



Until the discovery of the extinct animals in the Nebraska beds of the Mauvaises Terres, 

 it was supposed that the Rhinoceros was peculiar to the Old World. PaltBontologists and zoologists 

 reasoned upon the fact, and many a &lse theory was proj)ped up by it, and nianj' a sound argument 

 perilled. But by all the fact was accepted as beyond dispute. 



It was, therefore, with no ordinary interest thai the scientific world learned about 1831 (twenty 

 j-ears before Nebraska was heard of), that a fragment of a jaw, containing two incisor teeth, of 

 an aninuil closely allied to the Rhinoceros, had been found in Pennsylvania. This had " notliing of 

 the nature of bone about it except its form, the whole substance, teeth included, being constituted of 

 an aggregate of quartzose particles, and presenting the apjiearance, not ol' a gradual substitution by 

 mineral infiltration to osseous matter, but of a cast of part of a jaw and teeth hinned of small quartzose 

 grit, and giving a semi-lranslucency to the teeth, which is wanting to the more opaque jaw." f The 

 American geologists received it witli some doubt. Dr. Harlan regarded it as in all probability a mere 

 h(sus iiaturw of the mineial kingdom, having a ^ery close resemblance to a jjortion of the animal skele- 

 ton..! Dr. J. Ha3fsand Jlr. J. Lea regarded it as a. mere mineral fragment.*^ The specimen was sent to 

 London, and the geologists who there examined it considered it of too doubtful a cliaracler to 

 be admitted as a fossil remnant. Lastly, when it came under llie penetrating invesligation of 

 De Blainville, he spoke out. "This is not the place," says he, "to discuss this at least very 

 questionable point; but as the specimen now forms part of the collections of Ihe musevmi" (I jDresume 

 the Museum of tlie Jardin des Plantes), "we can give our assurance that it does not resemble the least 

 in the world a fragment of tlie jaw of a Rhinoceros, neither as regards the body of the bone, noi' the 

 pretended teeth. It is without doubt an artificial piece, a gross cheat. It is, therefore, truly 

 to be regretted that the expression of the thought has been hazai'dcd, and that all the Catalogues of 

 Paleontology have recorded a species of fossil Rhinoceros from America without even a mark 

 of doubt." II 



The regret need no longer be felt. Wo have now two sjDecics of extinct Rhinoceros from 

 America, of whose authenticity and correctness of determination no doubt can be entertained. (Rn. 

 occiDENTALis and Rh. Nebrascensis, both described by Dr. Leidy.) 



Both are from tlie Nebraska beds. They were smaller tluin the Old- World species, the largest 



* 1)E Blainville, " 0.-»teograplaie," Ostco. Gen. Klii- J Harlan, "Mcil. and Phys. Researchos," p. 2CS, 



noceros, p. 212, 1S45-.54. 1835. 



t FE.\THEUSToNUAUGn, in "Monthly Amuric. Jouin. § LEmv, '-Extinct Fauna uf Nebraska," p. 29. 1852. 



Geology," 1831, p. 10. !| Blainville, op. cit. p. 212. 



