H"! ON THE CHARACTERS OF RHINOCEROS SIMUS. [Mar. 2, 



enabled me to make a comparison between Rhinoceros bicornis and 

 Rhinoceros simns, 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 Hp, 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 cars. In li. 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 shar|)ly pointed at its upper 

 extremity ', where the hairs which clothe its margin constitute a 

 slight tuft. Wliile the upper portion of the ear-conch is much 

 more expanded in R. 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, \2'5 inches and in R. bicornis 

 about 9*5 inches. 



A third point in which the two species apjjcar to difter is in the 

 shape of the nostrils, which, judging from the ])resent specimens, are, 

 in R. simns, elongated in a direction parallel with the mouth, while 

 in R. bicornis they are n>ore nearly of a circular shape. Again the 

 eye in R. 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 (Osteographic, Rhinciceros, pi. iii. and 

 iv,), and to Prof. Flower's remarks on tliis subject in the 'Pro- 

 ceedings' of this Society for 1870 (p. 4.52). 



' This peculiar I'eature is vrell shown iu the figures of R. simus given by 

 Smith (111. S. Afr. Zool. Mamm. t. six.), and Harris (Portraits, &c. pi. 19). 



