398 Note on Rhinoceros leptorhinus, Owen. 



the heavy Bovidse were either subjected to greater casualties, by floods 

 or other causes, than the lighter and more fleet Cervid^ ; or that 

 they existed in greater numbers and roamed in very much larger 

 herds. It also tends to prove that the Euminants numerically sur- 

 passed the whole of the other Herbivores, the Mauimoth alone being 

 comparable in this respect with the Oxen, but surpassing them in 

 size and weight ; and compared with which the bones of the Horse 

 and Rhinoceros are but few. This evidence leads to the assumption 

 also that the Rhinoceros was not a common animal in the Pleistocene 

 country whence the bones of the numerous animals deposited at 

 Ilford were derived. For assuming that the habits were similar 

 to those of the existing Rhinoceros, we should expect to meet with 

 its remains generally in places and under conditions better adapted 

 for their preservation, and hence more frequently found than that 

 of other co-existing types of Mammalia. 



It is a fact worth noting, that of this assemblage of vertebrate 

 remains, it is seldom that two or more bones of the same animal are 

 found in juxtaposition, showing that they did not find their resting- 

 place where the animals died, but have been floated, probably for 

 long distances from the upper tributaries of the ancient Thames, and 

 subsequently deposited in these fluviatile beds. But wherever the 

 country, and whatever the distance or means by which they have 

 been conveyed here, they have been subjected to no rolling nor water- 

 wearing action ; for all the angles and ridges of the bones still retain 

 their original natural sharpness. 



III. On the Remains of Bhinocebo^ leptohminus, Owen {Bh hemi- 



ICECHUS, FaLCONEk), IN THE COLLECTION OF SiR AnTONIO BkADY, 



F.G.S., FROM THE Pleistocene Deposits of the Yalley of the 

 Thames at Ilford, Essex. 



By The Editor. 

 (PLATE XV.) 



IN the late Dr. Falconer's Palasontological Memoirs ^ so ably edited 

 by Dr. Charles Murchison, F.R.S., a masterly and critical ex- 

 amination is given of the European Pliocene and Post- Pliocene 

 species of the genus Rhinoceros, from which we venture to extract 

 the subjoined inti-oductory remarks.* 



" After examining all the collections in England and Italy, and 

 those of Lyons, Montpellier, etc., I have come to the conclusion that 

 there were four distinct Pliocene and Post-Pliocene species of Rhi- 

 noceros, three of which have long been confounded by Cuvier and 

 other palaeontologists under the name of Rhinoceros leptorhimis. 



" I have carefully examined at Stuttgart the materials on which 

 Kaup's and Jiiger's Rhinoceros MercMi is founded. It is not a dis- 

 tinct species, but is identical with the Grays Thurrocks species, or 

 Rhinoceros leptorhinus (mihi). The R. Lunellensis of Gervais is 

 founded on a young jaw with milk-dentition, which is not to be de- 



1 8vo. London, 1868, vol. ii. p. 309. 



2 Compiled by Dr. Murchison from two letters addressed by Dr. Falconer in 1862 

 to Mons. Lartet, of Paris, and Col. Wood, of Stouthall, Swansea, and from his note 

 books. 



