102 



JIE. a. BUSK ON THE ANCIENT OR 



tion to the same species. The correspondence holds in the contour of the articular 

 head and large trochanter, and in the amount of uncination and expansion of the blade 

 of the third trochanter, which yield distinctive characters of the femur in different species 

 of Ehinoceros. The complete synostosis of the articular head, and strong tendinous 

 ridges on the surface of the bone, prove that the Gibraltar femur is of an adult and even 

 old animal. We have seen," he says, " no adult femur of R. megarhinus that would 

 correspond with it in size." 



The following Table shows the comparative dimensions of the Gibraltar bone and of 

 R. etruscus, as taken by Dr. Falconer and myself, together with those of R. hemitcechus 

 and R. bicornis &c. : — 



Dimensions of Femur in various species of 

 Rhinot:eros. 



Gibraltar femur 



R. etruscus, B.M 



M. bicornis (R. Tceitlod) . . 

 „ „ Saffron Walden 

 R. hemitcechus (Brady) . . 



3-3 

 3-5 

 3-3 

 4-0 

 3-6 



■c 5 



•d ° 



S is 



T3 O 



7-4 

 7-9 

 7-4 

 7-9 



3-2 

 3-1 

 3-2 



4-3 



4-8 

 3-5 



2-5 

 1-7 

 1-7 



O 3 



2-7 

 3-0 

 2-8 



At the time when this study of the Gibraltar femur was made by Dr. Falconer and 

 myself we were unable to find a fossil specimen that came so near to it in size and 

 general characters as the femur of R. etruscus above referred to ; but since then the 

 specimens of the smaller Thames-valley femur in Sir A. Brady's collection afford suffi- 

 cient ground for considering it not at all improbable that it may belong to the same 

 species, or one closely allied to it. It may also be remarked that, if the propor- 

 tions between the femur and humerus were the same in the extinct form as they are 

 in the existing R. bicornis, the diameter of the articular head in the Gibraltar bone 

 quite accords with that of the head of the adult humerus already described. They 

 may therefore be safely regarded as belonging to the same species, and, as I should 

 suppose from their both being crushed in the same way, in all probability to the 

 same animal, which all the other evidence seems to show was undistinguishable from 

 R. hemitcechus. 



A third specimen is a nearly entire tibia, represented in Plate XIV. fig. 4. 



This bone was found broken into numerous fragments, several of which were met 

 with many feet apart ; but I have been able to put them together in such a manner as 

 to give a very fair representation of the bone in its entirety. It belongs to an immature 

 animal, as both the proximal and distal epiphyses are naturally detached. It has 

 therefore probably not reached its full size. Dr. Falconer and I compared it with 



