108 MR. G. BUSK ON THE ANCIENT OR 
4. That, although in general the osteological characters are nearly identical with 
those of R. hemitechus, there are some differences, more especially in the astragalus, 
which it appears difficult to account for. 
5. That, whether identical or not with R. hemitechus, it cannot possibly be referred 
to R. megarhinus, Christol, R. etruscus, Fale., or R. bicornis, the only other species 
about which there could be any question. 
TX. CrErvus. 
Cervine remains abound in the breccia of Gibraltar. The predominance of rumi- 
nants was observed by John Hunter! in such of the specimens as were examined by 
him; and among the few which passed under his hand Cuvier identified two species of 
Cervus—one resembling the Fallow Deer, the other a larger form, which he regarded 
as being unknown in the existing European fauna’. 
Some of the paleontologists who have described the contents of the Bone-caves of 
the south of France have extravagantly multiplied the species of extinct Deer upon 
the most trifling grounds. Amongst these M. Marcel de Serres was preeminent ; of 
the cervine remains occurring in the caves of Lunel-Viel and Bize he has contrived to 
distinguish no less than ten extinct forms, to eight of which he gave specific names 
that merely serve to cumber the records of paleontology, since the majority of them 
appear to belong merely to varieties of the common or the Barbary Stag, or the Rein- 
deer *. 
The Genista cave and fissure have yielded a considerable number of cervine bones 
derived from nearly all parts of the skeleton. But of the antlers there are only a few 

name of leptorhinus, Ow., has gained very extensive adoption, is employed in the British Museum, and has, 
moreover, been accepted, as I conceive, with fair reason, by Prof. Boyd Dawkins (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. xxiii. 
1867, p. 217), it seems to me that it would be convenient and proper if paleontologists could agree upon its 
definitive adoption. A further reason might also now be given for the rejection of Dr. Falconer’s appellation, 
in the circumstance that it is anatomically incorrect, since it has been fully shown by Mr. W. Davies, in his 
excellent description of the Brady Collection (Catalogue of Pleistocene Vertebrata from the neighbourhood of 
Ilford, 1874, p. 30), that the smaller Rhinoceros of the Thames-valley had in all probability as complete an 
osseous septum as R. tichorhinus itself. 
Nowithstanding my great respect, or even veneration, for any opinion of the lamented M. Lartet, I am 
unable to accept R. merckii, Kaup, as the equivalent of 2. hemitechus, seeing, if for no other reason, that the 
typical specimens of the teeth of R. merckii procured from Dr. Kaup himself are in the British Museum, and 
are indisputably those of 2. megarhinus, Christol. Dr. Kaup, in fact, must have confounded more than one 
species under the term R. merckit. 
1 Phil. Trans. 1794, p. 408. * L.c. vol. iv. p. 173. 
* <Cayernes de Lunel-Viel,’ 1839, p. 173; and ‘ Cayernes de l’Aude, 1839, p. 103. 
