658 



ME. P. L. SCLATBE ON THE RHINOCEROSES 



that Mr. Blanlbid' has identified the Ehinoceros of N.E. Africa with S. keitloa^. But 

 in the Rhinoceros at Berlin, of the head of which I exhibit a drawing kindly procured 

 foi- me by Dr. Peters (fig. 9), the horns would appear to be much more nearly like 

 those of ^. bicornis ; and we must recollect that that came from exactly the same district 

 as our specimen. I have also seen other examples of Two-horned Rhinoceroses clearly 

 intermediate between the two forms. 



Fig. 9. 



Head of Nubian Rhinoceros iu Zool. (iard. Berlin. 



Under these circumstances 1 have thought it better for the present to let our Rhino- 

 ceros stand under the name R. hicornis. At the same time, 1 think it highly probable 

 that, when more specimens have been obtained and the subject has been more 

 thoroughly investigated, ample difference will be found to exist between R. hicornis 

 and R. keitloa. And, looking to the extent of country between the known patriae of 

 these species and the Nubian form to which our animal belongs, I think it by no means 

 unlikely that the latter may be ultimately found to belong to a third species, or, at all 

 events, to a third well-marked geographical race. 



' Geol. and Zool. of Abyssinia, p. 243. 



' See also Gray, Ann. N. H. ser. 4, vol. iii. p. 244 (1869), where Mr. Jesse's specimen, killed in Abyssinia, is 

 referred to It. keitloa. But in the same author's ' Handlist,' published in 1873 (p. 51), Mr. Blanford's specimen 

 killed on the same occasion is entered as lihinasier bicornis ! (I. c. p. 51. sp. 1305. 1-). 



