378 



RHINOCEROS. 



Val cTArno, and closely agreeing with the figures given 

 by Cuvier in the ' Ossemens Fossiles,' Rhinoceros, pi. x., 

 figs. 1 and 2, confirms the accuracy of the reference of 

 the Val d'Arno remains to the Rhinoceros leptorhinus. 

 The humerus now before me, discovered by Mr. Brown 

 at the same time and place with the leptorhine cranium, 

 presents a most striking contrast with the proportions of 

 the humerus of the tichorhine Rhinoceros before cited, 

 from Lawford. 



I subjoin the following comparative dimensions : 



JRh. leptorhinus. Rh. tichorhinus. 



In. Lin. In. Lin. 



Length, from the head to the beginning of the ) , ft , 



anconal depression > 



Length of the deltoidal crest . . 73 80 



Circumference of the proximal end . 190 260 



Smallest circumference of the shaft . 79 106 



Breadth of the proximal end . 70 96 



In Mr. Brown's specimen the distal end is broken off. 



An ulna, slightly mutilated, from the till at Walton, 

 near Essex, in like manner agrees in its proportions with 

 that from the Val d'Arno, figured by Cuvier in the plate 

 cited, fig. 13. 



The long and slender proportions of the femur of the 

 Italian Rhinoceros are noticed in the ' Ossemens Fossiles ;"* 

 the third trochanter is thrown more forward, and the great 

 trochanter does not descend to join the third. 



I have had no means of applying these characters to 

 the identification of the leptorhine species as an English 

 fossil ; the only part of the femur found associated with the 

 skull and teeth of the Rh. leptorhinus at Clacton being 

 the distal extremity, on the characters of which the text 

 is silent, and the reduced figures inexpressive in the 

 ' Ossemens Fossiles.' This fragment having been kindly 

 transmitted to me by Mr. Brown, together with the other 



