144 . ON THE CHARACTERS OF RHINOCEROS stmus. [Mar. 2, 
enabled me to make a comparison between Rhinoceros bicornis and 
Rhinoceros simus, which I have never before had an opportunity of 
doing. Indeed, as is well known, such specimens of the latter 
species, with the exception of a single immature example in the 
British Museum, are almost unknown in Europe. 
On looking at the two heads now before us side by side, the 
points by which this part of the two animals may be distinguished 
present themselves very appreciably. In the first place, as is already 
well known, the “ White” or ‘ Square-nosed”” Rhinoceros, as it is 
much better called, is distinguished by its short upper lip, which is 
quite apparent in the example now before us. In R. bicornis the 
central portion of the upper lip is far extended, and forms a quasi- 
prehensile organ. This is sufficiently manifest in the specimen now 
on the table, but is still better seen in the living example of the 
same animal in the Society’s Gardens. 
A second point in which the heads of the two African Rhinoceroses 
differ materially is in the size and shape of the ears. In R. bicornis 
(Plate XVI. fig. 2) the ear-conch is much rounded at its extremity 
and edged by a fringe of short black hairs which spring from the 
margin. In R. simus (Plate XVI. fig. 1) the ear-conch is appa- 
rently much more elongated and sharply pointed at its upper 
extremity ', where the hairs which clothe its margin constitute a 
slight tuft. While the upper portion of the ear-conch is much 
more expanded in #. simus than in R. bicornis, in the lower portion 
the two margins are united together for a much greater extent, and 
form a closed cylinder, which in the present specimen rises about 
3 inches above the base. The total’ length of the ears in the 
present specimens is, in R. simus, 12°5 inches and in R. bicornis 
about 9°5 inches. 
A third point in which the two species appear to differ is in the 
shape of the nostrils, which, judging from the present specimens, are, 
in Lt. simus, elongated in a direction parallel with the mouth, while 
in R. bicornis they are more nearly of a circular shape. Again the 
eye in &. simus appears to be placed further back in the head than 
in R. bicornis. 
A regards the well-known differences in the skulls of these two 
Rhinoceroses, which are obvious enough on a glance at the specimens 
on the table, I will say nothing on the present occasion, but simply 
refer to De Blainville’s figures (Ostéographie, Rhinoceros, pl. iii. and 
iv.), and to Prof. Flower’s remarks on this subject in the ‘ Pro- 
ceedings’ of this Society for 1876 (p. 452). 
* This peculiar feature is well shown in the figures of R. simus given by 
Smith (Ill. S. Afr. Zool. Mamm. t, xix.), and Harris (Portraits, &e. pl. 19). 
