368 



RHINOCEROS. 



Fig. 139. 



corresponding view of the 

 skull of the Eh. ticho- 

 rhinus, given by Cuvier in 

 the ' Ossemens Fossiles, 1 

 4to., 1823, torn, iii., pi. 

 Ixxix., fig. 5. 



So compared, the Olac- 

 i ton specimen will be seen 

 to be narrower in propor- 

 tion to its length, espe- 

 cially at the cerebral and 

 nasal regions : the con- 

 fluent nasal bones (n) are 

 not only more slender, 

 but are more attenuated 

 anteriorly, and thus vindi- 

 cate the appropriateness 

 of the name leptorJiinus 

 originally applied to the 

 present species by its first 

 discoverer.* The inter- 

 orbital surface (/) for 

 the frontal horn is not 

 only less elevated, but is 

 much less rugose, and is 

 separated by a smooth 

 space of some extent 



Upper surface of the skull of Rhinoceros from that (ri) for the 

 inus. -fa nat. size. Clacton. 



* The French name, Rhinoceros a narines non cloisonnees, more commonly 

 applied by Cuvier to this species, is now proved to be inapplicable ; the more 

 accurate term would be a marines demi-cloisonnees ; but, as the nasal bones 

 notwithstanding their partial osseous supporting wall, are actually more slender 

 than those of the Rh. tichorhimts, there is no objection to the Latin nomen triviale 

 leptorhinus, and every reason for retaining it. 



