QUATERNARY FAUNA OF GIBRALTAR. 107 
The bone is 6:2 long, the proximal end 1-6 x 1-75, the distal 1"°6 x 1-4 the least 
circumference of the shaft 3'-4, and the perimetral index ‘548. In the same bone from 
Ilford, No. 20816, B.M., the corresponding numbers are 6!-0, 16x 1"5, 1"°8 x 1'"8, 
3-4, and 566. 
Taking this specimen as the type of the fourth metatarsal in R. hemitechus, it would, 
so far as the above dimensions go, appear to be more robust in the shaft, and to have a 
thicker distal extremity than the Gibraltar specimen. Subjoined is a Table showing 
the relative dimensions of the bone in other species :— 









Dimensions of the fourth metatarsal in z cA a 
Rhinoceros. iS ao! 5 3 
F, ri a a # 
3 FS ey 3 o 
2 i: 3 z | 2 
A a A 4 a 
Gibraltar specimen .................. 62 | 16x1:75 | 16x14 | 3-4 | 548 
R. hemiteechus, Grays, No. 20816 ........ 60 | 16x15 18x18 | 34 | -566 
R. bicornis (R. keitloa) 2... 2. ee 56 | 16x16 13x13 | 3:1 | -553 


From the foregoing account of the Rhinocerine remains it may be concluded :— 
1. That they belong to at least three individuals, varying somewhat in size and,’ 
more particularly, in age. 
2. That notwithstanding these differences, there is no reason for supposing that 
they represent more than one species, which was of about the same stature as, though 
somewhat slenderer in the extremities than the existing R. bicornis. 
3. That in the dental and most of the osteological characters the Gibraltar Rhino- 
ceros, if not identical with, more closely resembled the smaller of the two Thames- 
valley species (R. hemitechus', Fale., R. leptorhinus, Owen, R. merckii, Lartet) than 
any other known extinct or recent form. 
* With respect to the proper appellation of the smaller Thames-valley Rhinoceros, which was regarded by 
Dr. Falconer as identical with the species first distinguished by him in the Gower Caves and elsewhere under the 
name of F. hemiteechus, and also with that previously described by Prof. Owen from Clacton, notwithstanding 
all that has been written, some difference of opinion may well be entertained. Although in this account of the 
Gibraltar Rhinoceros I haye employed the familiar term proposed by Dr. Falconer, I am by no means sure that 
it would not be better to retain the name given to the Clacton species by Prof Owen. It is quite true that 
R. leptorhinus, Owen, is not R. leptorhinus of Cuvier, which, though it appears to haye included 2. megarhinus, 
Christol, and #. etruscus, Falc., does not seem to have embraced R. hemitechus; but, for the reason that 
Cuvier’s term is of uncertain application, has been pretty generally superseded by R. megarhinus, and that the 
