Note on Rhinoceros leptorhinus, Owen. 403 



the coarsely cancellated bone found in the preceding specimen, and 

 the continuous ridge, lead to the inference that" (contrary to the 

 (Opinion of Dr. Falconer as already quoted) "the nares of this species 

 were separated by an osseous division, the coarse structure of the 

 greater part of which contributed to its speedy decomposition ; the 

 anterior portions, being of more compact texture, are found generally 

 well preserved. Moreover, the inner edges of the portion of the 

 septum which remain in this and the preceding specimen are jagged 

 and broken, showing no trace of a true natural margin. 



"The surfaces of the inter-orbital platform and of the posterior 

 portions of the nasals are so slightly rugose in this specimen, that 

 they may be described as nearly smooth, and as affording but small 

 support for the basal attachment of either a nasal or a frontal horn ; 

 and as the cranial sutures are all consolidated, this comparative 

 smoothness is not due to immaturit}''. The skull is of somewhat 

 smaller dimensions than the preceding, and may probably be that of 

 a female." 



Concerning the jaw of Itliinoceros leptorhinus (figured with the 

 skull on PI. XV.)-, Mr. Davies observes:: — "This is an exceedingly 

 fine and nearly entire lower jaw, consisting of both rami, and con- 

 taining the entire series of permanent teeth in situ, with the ex- 

 ception of the second premolar of the left side, of which the alveolus 

 only is preserved. The anterior end of the symphysis is mutilated ; 

 otherwise each ramus, with its condyle and coronoid, is perfect. 

 They are firmly connected at the symphysial suture, which is 

 thoroughly consolidated. That the jaw pertained to an aged adult, is 

 shown by the condition of the teeth, for they have all, even the last 

 molars, been well worn. There are two mentary foramina in each 

 jaw." 



The dimensions are given as follows : — "Length of jaw 19 in. 

 Height of ascending ramus to condyle 11 in. Height of ascending 

 ramus to coronoid 12-5 in. Transverse lengtL of condyles 4:'o in. 

 Length of molar series 9'5in." 



We have to thank Mr. Davies most heartily for clearing up this 

 obscure and difficult point, involving as it does the fundamental cha- 

 racter upon which Falconer's species of Rhinoceros hemitoechus rests. 



In the future Falconer's name {B. hemitoeehus) must give way before 

 Prof. Owen's B. leptorhinus,^ not only as the older name, but also 

 because Falconer's specific appellation "is faulty" (to quote Dr. 

 Falconer's own words as to the abolition of B: tichorhinus, see ante, 

 p. 400), "inasmuch as this species had a completely ossified nasal 

 septum." From the observations of Mr. Davies it seems probable 

 that the greater or less development of the bony nasal septum (upon 

 which Dr. Falconer laid so much stress) cannot be relied upon as a 

 basis of specific distinction between R. Etruscus ; B. leptorhinus, 

 Owen {B. hemitoechus, Falc.) ; and B. antiquitatis, Blum, [vet B. 

 tichorhinus, Guv.), although it may assist us, when preserved in fossil 

 crania, to decide whether it was a horned, or hornless, Rhinoceros. 



' See Owen's History of British Fossil Mammals and Birds, London, 18-16. 

 8vo., p. 356. 



