448 E. T. Newton—Pre- Glacial Mammalia. 
hand. d. naturf. Gesell. in Basel, Band iii. Heft 4, 1863), and he 
proposed to call them Equus caballus fossilis, Among the Continental 
Pliocene forms he also found teeth which, being indistinguishable’ 
from the recent Horse, he also referred to the above species. Certain 
of the Pliocene Horse’s teeth, however, are distinguished by having 
the inner pillar of enamel in the upper teeth, smaller, more rounded, 
and more separated from the rest of the tooth, than is the case 
in the recent or Post-Pliocene forms, and for these he proposed to 
retain the name of Equus fossilis; subsequently, however (Weitere 
Beitriige, etc., Abhand. d. schweiz. pal. Gesell., 1875, vol. ii.), he 
thought it well to adopt Prof. Cocchi’s name of Equus Stenonis, which 
had been proposed by the latter gentleman for teeth of a similar 
character (L’Uomo fossile nell’ Italia centrale, Milano, 1867, p. 18). 
The greater number of Horses’ teeth from the “Forest Bed,” 
which have come under my notice, I cannot separate from those of 
the recent Horse, and, adopting Prof. Riitimeyer’s convenient nomen- 
clature, refer them to E. caballus fossilis. Among the upper molars, 
however, a few examples are to be found, in which the inner pillar 
of enamel is smaller, more rounded, and more separated from the rest 
of the tooth, than in any recent Horse’s tooth, and, in fact, resembles 
so closely the forms figured by Riitimeyer, and called H. Stenonis, 
that I feel compelled to refer them to that species. If I am correct 
in this determination, then we shall have to recognize two species 
of horse in the “ Forest Bed,” EZ. caballus fossilis, Rutimeyer, and 
EH. Stenonis, Cocchi. 
Asinus fossilis.—Mr. A. Bell includes the Ass as a “ Forest Bed” 
species, but I have failed to find any specimens undoubtedly from the 
«Forest Bed,” which could be referred to this species. The small 
equine teeth in the King Collection are of very uncertain origin. 
Rhinoceros.—Although the earlier writers on the “ Forest Bed” 
fauna thought they had recognized R. tichorhinus and R. leptorhinus, 
yet of late years it has been generally acknowledged that neither of 
these species occur; the remains so named being referable to the 
R. etruscus, a species established by Dr. Falconer, in 1858 (Pal. 
Mems. vol. ii. p. 854), and described by Prof. Boyd Dawkins in 1868 
(Q.J.G.S. vol. xxiv. p. 207). Nearly all the Rhinoceros teeth from 
the ‘“‘ Forest Bed” are characterized by the more or less strongly 
developed guard, which is one of the specific peculiarities of R. 
etruscus, and there can be no question as to their belonging to that 
species. In Mr. Gunn’s Collection there is an upper fourth premolar 
tooth, which was referred by Messrs. Lartet and Falconer, after long 
consultation, to the R. megarhinus of Christol. These gentlemen, it 
appears, had some doubts about this tooth, but thought it more nearly 
allied to the last-mentioned*species than to any other. A comparison 
of this tooth with the Rhinoceros remains in the British Museum 
leads me to the same conclusion; but, as there is still some un- 
certainty, I place a note of interrogation after the species. 
Hippopotamus. —The Hippopotamus remains from the “‘ Forest Bed” 
were referred by Prof. Owen, in 1846, to his H. major; and there is 
no reason for thinking that any of the specimens, more recently 
i 
