732 MR. F. c. SELOus ON THE [June 7, 



entirely on the shape and length of the horns in different indi- 

 viduals. 



Now I have carefully examined and measured many specimens of 

 Prehensile-lipped Rhinoceroses, and have never been able to dis- 

 cover that they differed in any way the one from the other, except 

 in the length and shape of the posterior horn ; nor could I ever dis- 

 cover the differences between the two mentioned by Mr. C. J. 

 Andersson and other writers upon the subject. Some specimens 

 had long curly hair upon their ears; but some of the most marked 

 forms of B, bicornis had this peculiarity equally strongly marked 

 as others whose horns showed them to belong to the so-called 

 species R. keitloa. Many writers upon the subject state that 

 whereas R. bicornis eats nothing but bush, R. keitloa eats both grass 

 and bush indiscriminately. Now, if this were the case, how is it 

 that during eight years, more than three fourths of which I have 

 spent in the wilderness, engaged in a continual search for elephants, 

 and always in countries where Rhinoceroses may still be found in 

 greater or lesser numbers, I have only observed two kinds of dung — 

 the black dung, composed entirely of grass, evacuated by the large 

 Square-mouthed grass-eating Rhinoceros, and the dark red dung 

 (with a greenish tinge when the animal has been feeding upon 

 sprouting shoots), full of little chips of wood, evacuated by the 

 prehensile-lipped species. It appears to me that, if there were 

 a species which fed indiscriminately upon grass and bushes, one 

 would see a third kind of dung, in which sometimes bush and some- 

 times grass would predominate ; but this is most certainly not the 

 case. Again, every Kafir and JMasara in the interior will tell you 

 that there are three kinds of Rhinoceroses, namely : — R. simus, which 

 the Matabele call " Umhofo " and the Bechuanas "Chukuru;" i2. 

 bicornis, which the former call " Upeygau " and the latter " Borele ;" 

 and, lastly, R. keitloa, which they name respectively "Shangainea" 

 and "Keitloa." But when they are questioned beside a dead Rhinoceros, 

 1 have found that they all base their distinction between R. bicornis 

 and R. keitloa upon the length of the posterior horn alone. Some, 

 indeed, will say that the two varieties differ in size or in the length 

 of hair upon the ears. But I have proved, by actual measurement 

 and personal observation, that the variations in size and the length 

 of the hair upon the ears have nothing to do with the length of the 

 posterior horn, which is the fundamental point upon which all Dutch 

 and native hunters base the distinction between the two species. 

 Again, when one comes upon a Rhinoceros-spoor in the bush, any 

 bushman or Kafir hunter can say whether it is the spoor of a Square- 

 mouthed Rhinoceros or of a Prehensile-lipped one, simply judging 

 from the size of the footprint. But no Kafir or bushman can tell 

 you, when he sees the smaller spoor of a Prehensile-lipped Rhino- 

 ceros, whether it be that of jB. bicornis or R. keitloa, nor even when 

 he sees the dung can he tell you ; for, as I have said before, there is 

 no difference in this particular. However, when the animal has 

 been shot they will say to which species it belongs. If the second 

 horn is not over seven or eight inches in length, they will be all 



