358 RHINOCEROS. 



of the Rhinoceros discovered at Plaisance, and the results 

 of a careful comparison of three large drawings of that 

 fossil, made at his request by MM. de la Marmora 

 and Gene at Milan ; from which he was led to conclude 

 that the drawing published by Cuvier was very defective 

 in one of the most essential points, and had led the great 

 Anatomist into the error of creating a species which had 

 never existed.* 



M. Christol found, in fact, that the bony septum of 

 the nose had been omitted in the sketch engraved in the 

 ' Ossemens Fossiles,' whilst a considerable portion of it 

 actually existed in the fossil ; and that the anterior 

 extremity of the nasal bones, represented as projecting 

 freely forwards in the Cuvierian figure, were evidently 

 broken off in the actual fossil, according to the large 

 drawings transmitted to him by Prof. Gene. (Loc. cit. 

 P . 70.) 



The discrepancies between the figures published by 

 Cuvier and M. Christol are obvious enough ; and one can 

 scarcely avoid conceding to the later observer, that he 

 has established the fact of the existence, in M. Cortesi's 

 fossil, of the chief character, viz., the bony partition of 

 the nose, the absence of which was mainly depended on 

 by Cuvier as the distinctive feature of his Rhinoceros a na- 

 rines non-cloisonnees. Since, however, this species rests not 

 only upon M. Brongniart's drawing of the skull at Milan, 

 but upon characters deduced, by Cuvier's own observation, 

 from lower jaws obtained from fresh- water deposits in 

 Italy, M. Christol, who had not any more than Cuvier 



* " Cuvier n'a pas eu occasion de la voir, il n'a pu en decrire la tete que 

 d'apres un dessein qui, tout en retrac,ant assez exactement les contours gnraux 

 de cette tete, est tres incomplet dans le point le plus essentiel, et me parait avoir 

 induit Cuvier en erreur en le portant a creer une espece qui n'a point exist." 

 Christol, loc. cit. p. 47. 



