RHINOCEROS LEPTORHINUS. 359 



personally inspected or compared M. Cortesi's fossil, ex- 

 pects too much when he demands the entire suppression 

 of the Rhinoceros leptorhinus from the catalogue of extinct 

 species. 



I shall be able, indeed, to show that the partial bony 

 septum, and its confluence with the extremities of the 

 nasal bones, inferred by M. Christol to exist in the 

 skull of the Rhinoceros at Milan, do not, of themselves, 

 give proofs of its identity with the species called Rh. 

 tichorhinus ; and although, in the absence of direct in- 

 spection of the fossil in question, I cannot presume to 

 question the accuracy of M. Christol's determination of 

 it, I may observe that the points above cited, upon which 

 he chiefly grounds his opinion, are not incompatible with 

 the characters which I have ascertained to belong to the 

 skull of the Rhinoceros leptorMnus. 



Before adverting to these, I shall first adduce evidence 

 of the existence, in British fresh-water newer-pliocene 

 deposits, of a Rhinoceros, having the same characters of 

 the lower jaw and teeth which Cuvier has ascribed to 

 his Rhinoceros leptorhinus. 



The specimens described and figured in the ' Ossemens 

 Fossiles, 1 torn, cit.-pl. ix., figs. 8 and 9, were discovered 

 in Tuscany, and are the most common kind of Rhino- 

 ceros jaws in that part of Italy, where, however, the 

 lower jaw of the Rhinoceros tichorhinus has likewise been 

 found. From this the jaw of the Rh. leptorhinus differs 

 " by the continuation of the series of molar teeth close to 

 the anterior end of the jaw, which is short and not pro- 

 longed into a prominence, or expanded part ;" and these 

 characters Cuvier correctly cites as evidence of the close 

 resemblance of the leptorhine Rhinoceros to the two-horned 

 species of the Cape. (Tom. cit. p. 72.) The fossil speci- 



