TRANSACTIONS OF WAGNER 

 46 



RHINOCEROS 



from Florida. A comparison of the teeth and some of the bones with those 

 of the type of Aphelops malacorhinus in the collection of Professor Cope 

 shows the identity of the two species, and that Rhinoceros longipcs is merely a 

 synonyme of A. malacorhinus. Remains of this species, as in Western deposits, 

 are much less abundant than those of A. fossigcr, and comparatively few teeth 

 are included in the collections from Florida. 



The differences between the molars of A. malacorhinus and A. fossiger 

 are well marked, and consist in the greater simplicity of structure of the molar 

 of A. malacorliinus, the smaller size of the fossettes, and consequent closer 

 approximation of the various crests. (See plate x. figs. 1 1 to 16.) There is no 

 constriction of the inner part of either protoloph or metaloph into a separate 

 column, these two crests, when viewed from the inner side, appearing as two 

 simple cones united for some distance above their bases. The cingulum is 

 much developed, and exhibits a tendency to give off little conical projections 

 on the inner edge. The surface of the enamel is quite smooth, lacking the 

 vertical striations present m fossiger and its subspecies protcrus. 



Strictly speaking, the molars bear no anticrochet, although there is a slight 

 angularity of the protoloph where the anticrochet would be produced, but the 

 crochet is well developed, and there is a tendency towards the production of 

 a crista which may, as in plate x. fig. 1 1, unite with the crochet. In the type 

 of A. malacorhinus there is no anticrochet on either pm. 3 or 4. The differ- 

 ences between the teeth of A. malacoi-hinus and A. fossiger are just such as 

 prevail between those of the African R. bicornis and the Asiatic R. nnicornis. 



The canine ascribed to this species, plate xi. fig. II, is very large and 

 heavy, straighter than the canine of A. fossiger, more rounded in section, and 

 more pointed anteriorly. 



There are no vertebrae in the collection which appear to belong to this 

 species. 



HUMERUS. The distal end of the humerus, plate xvi. fig. 7, is not only 

 much larger than any specimen of this bone belonging to A. fossiger, but 

 lacks the great and abrupt projection of the external condyle. The posterior 

 projection of the internal condyle is also less pronounced than in fossiger, and 

 the humerus more nearly resembles that of R. nnicornis. The supinator ridge 

 is not pronounced, and the shaft of the bone is rounder than in fossiger. 



RADIUS. Two radii were ascribed to R. longipes by Dr. Leidy, but the 

 specific identity of one, plate xiv. fig. I, was justly queried, for while larger 

 than any of the Florida specimens of protems, it is no larger and no more 



