EHINOCEKOS. 



168 



animal has any trace of the isolated pillar been hitherto found. Oc- 

 curring as this peculiarity does in a deciduous tooth, should nothing 

 similar take place in the permanent tooth which replaces it, the only 

 chance of determining the question will be the discovery of an entire 

 head. We have noticed an upper jaw, fig. 4, PI. XIX., which indicates 

 the probability of the existence of two species. The examination of 

 the above lower jaws rather confirms this supposition ; but in the 

 event of such slight modifications denoting specific distinctions, we 

 are unable, in consequence of the paucity and incompleteness of speci- 

 mens, to decide which are the milk-teeth of the fossil Indian rhino- 

 ceros. Nor are we fortunate with respect to the lower maxilla of the 

 adult animal ; figs. 6, 7, and figs. 8, 9, being all that Ave can bring for- 

 ward. Tlie sections of these two fi-agments differ, in consequence of 

 their being derived, one fi-om the posterior, the other from the anterior 

 part of the jaw, which thickens as it approaches to the symphysis. 

 These two specimens resemble the corresponding portions of the 

 lower jaw of the Indian rhinoceros, but are too imperfect to afford 

 any satisfactory measurements for grounds of comparison. 



Anterior Extremity. 



A scapula in our possession is not sufficiently perfect to give accu- 

 rate measurements, but it bears as great a general resemblance to 

 that of the Indian rhinoceros as do the other parts of the skeleton. 



The humerus, figs. 1, 2, PI. XVIL, having its radius and ulna at- 

 tached, was discovered by ourselves very close to the place whence we 

 excavated the femur and tibia forming the subject of PI. XVIII. With 

 the exception of the deltoid crest, this humerus is perfect, and has 

 afforded the dimensions which enter into the first column of the table. 

 For the purpose of comparison, the five following columns are 

 added. The proportions of the Indian and Sumatra small species of 

 rhinoceros are deduced from Cuvier's table ; those of the fossil speci- 

 mens are of course from the Table of Dimensions. The length of the 

 bone is assumed as the unit, and the measures of other parts referred to 

 it, in order to obtain their comparative values. 



M 2 



