Dr. TF. T. Blanford — Age of the Himalayas, 163 



allied to a species belonging to Aceratlieriiim, a small hornless 

 (extinct) group, with well-developed incisors in both jaws. B. anti- 

 quitatis, as is well known, was a huge two-horned animal without, 

 or almost without, incisors. 



Nor is this all. We know that B, antiquitatis fed on certain trees 

 (I believe it ate grass also, but this is immaterial), but we also 

 know, not from the examination of teeth belonging to two or three 

 skulls, but from numerous observations on the wild animal, that 

 the nearest living (or recently living) ally of B. antiquitatis, the 

 so-called White Rhinoceros of South Africa, B. simus, feeds or fed 

 entirely on grass (see, for instance, P.Z.S. 1881, p. 726), so that 

 any inference as to the Tibetan Rhinoceros being a tree- and shrub- 

 feeder, from what is known of the food of B. antiquitatis, would be 

 worthless, even if the two species were closely allied, instead of 

 belonging, as they do, to very diiferent sections of the genus. 



Again, we are told by Mr. Ho worth that the Rhinoceros does not 

 graze on short grass. From the context it may be fairly inferred 

 that the grass of Tibet is regarded as short. Now 'short' is a 

 relative term ; various members of the family of grasses vary in 

 length from two or three inches, or even less, to 20 feet at least 

 (without including bamboos). But if by short grass Mr. Howorth 

 understands turf, such, for instance, as is found on most English 

 hills, I can only say that the Tibetan grass, which is described by 

 Kinloch as coarse and wiry, grows in tufts amongst stones, and does 

 not deserve the term. Moreover, as Lydekker has shown (Records 

 Geol. Surv. India, vol. xiv. 1881, p. 183), there is a considerable 

 amount of low bush and other vegetation besides grass on parts of 

 the Tibetan plateau. I believe the whole argument was completely 

 covered by what 1 urged before, that where a large bovine like the 

 Yak can find subsistence, a Rhinoceros (and especially a Rhinoceros 

 no larger than a Yak) can do the same. 



Mr. Howorth also says he does not understand " why the existence 

 of a zoological sub-province in China, which has been established by 

 a chain of observers from Brian Hodgson to Pere David, precludes 

 the notion, otherwise so strongly supported, that the Highlands of 

 Eastern Asia are a recent feature in physical geography." Here 

 the fault may have been mine in not explaining my argument 

 more clearly, though in cases where I thought I was thoroughly 

 explicit, Mr. Howorth, I regret to say, finds great difficulty in 

 following my reasoning. The point is one of considerable interest, 

 and I may perhaps be allowed to explain it more fully. 



In the first place I must explain that my remarks on the fauna of 

 Tibet do not refer to the zoological sub-province in China, by which 

 of course Mr. Howorth understands the Indo-Chinese sub-region 

 of Wallace, comprising the Himalayas and Southern China. Both 

 Brian Hodgson's and Pere David's collections were chiefly com- 

 posed of specimens belonging to the fauna of this sub-region, which 

 is part of the Oriental or Indian region. But both these collections 

 contained a few gleanings from the true Tibetan fauna which belongs 

 to the Palaearctic region, and contains scarcely any Oriental forms. 



