794 THE SECRETARY ON ADDITIONS TO THE MENAGERIE. [Nov. 5, 



These differences are well shown in the water-colour drawings of 

 these animals by Mr. Wolf, which I exhibit, and of which I hope here- 

 after to publish copies in the Society's ' Transactions,' together with 

 some noteson the speciesof Rhinoceros living in the Society's Gardens. 



Mr. Smit's figure of the Sumatran Rhinoceros (Plate LXVII.) 

 may also be compared with that of R. lasiotis (Plate XXIII., 

 p. 494) already given in the ' Proceedings.' 



Lastly I have to add with regret that our Sumatran Rhinoceros 

 did not live long in the Society's Gardens, but died very suddenly 

 on the night of the 21st of September. 



Our Prosector has made notes on the anatomy and osteology of 

 this animal, which he will shortly bring before the Society. In the 

 mean time I have compared the skull (which I now exhibit) with 

 the skull of the Sumatran Rhinoceros in the Museum of the College 

 of Surgeons, received from Sir Stamford Raffles, with which it agrees 

 quite sufficiently, although the nasal portion is decidedly broader 

 in the present specimen. Mr. Garrod, however, informs me that the 

 present skull agrees perfectly with the adult skull of Rhinoceros 

 sumatrensis from Pegu in the British Museum. 



The present skull is evidently that of a very old animal, the lower 

 incisors having entirely disappeared. Professor Flower has informed 

 me that the same is the case with a skull of R. sumatrensis in the 

 Brussels Museum. 



The skin and skeleton of this animal have been purchased of the 

 Society by the Trustees of the British Museum. 



I may remark that the stuffed specimen of the Sumatran Rhino- 

 ceros in the Gallery of the British Museum (which originally came 

 from the Leyden Museum) is evidently a young male of the same 

 species. I observe that it has recently had its name changed to 

 Ceratorhinus crossii ; so that it is probable that our specimen will 

 have this name applied to it when placed in the British Museum. But 

 even should it be proved that the Rhinoceros lasiotis is the true 

 sumatrensis (as Dr. Gray has maintained*), it would not, I think, 

 under any circumstances, be right to apply the term crossii (founded 

 on what is probably only an abnormal horn) to this species. 



2. A female of what appears to be a small form of the Mant- 

 churian Deer (Cervus mantchuricus), inhabiting Japan, received in 

 exchange from the Jardin d'Acclimatation of Paris. On the 18th of 

 March last we received a male of this same animal as a present from 

 Mr. T. R. Wheelock of Shanghai. Having been informad by the 

 donor that this Deer was from Japan, I at -first referred it to Cervus 

 sika, the only described species of Cervus of that country. But 

 this was decidedly an error ; that is, the species is decidedly different 

 from that which we call Cervus siJcaf, and does not much differ from 

 our Cervus mantchuricus, except in size, standing only 2 ft. 8 in. in 

 height at the shoulders, instead of 3 ft. 8 in., and thus being interme- 

 diate between C. mantchuricus and C. pseuclaxis sive taevanus. 



A second female apparently of the same form, but differing slightly 



* Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, vol. x. p. 207, " On the double-horned Asiatic 

 Rhinoceros." See also my remarks, ibid. p. 298 

 + Cf. Trans. Zool. Soe. Vii. p. 34(>. 



