164 FAUNA ANTIQUA SIVALENSIS. 



The Sumatra rhinoceros (small species) concurs with the fossil 

 Indian rhinoceros in having the length taken to the external condyle 

 longer than that taken to the internal. The Javanese and the larger 

 Sumatra species also accord with the fossil in this respect, but not so 

 nearly as the small Sumatra species, which has consequently been intro- 

 duced into the above table. 



The length of the fossil humerus, figs. 1, 2, PI. XVII., exceeds that 

 of any of the existing species : its thickness is, in proportion to the 

 length of the bone, intermediate between the Sumatra and Indian species. 

 Tlie articulating pulley also possesses a development intermediate in 

 value to those of the two existing species. The breadth at the condyles 

 is in the same proportion, or nearly so, as that of the Indian rhinoceros. 

 The radius is in length, considered with reference to length of femur, a 

 little less than in the Indian, and somewhat in excess of the small 

 Sumatra species. The remaining two dimensions of this bone yield 

 values intermediate to those of the two existing rhinoceroses. These 

 remarks apply to the deductions for fig. 1 ; nor would it be necessaiy 

 much to alter them in speaking of fig. 5 ; but fig. 6 presents such 

 a close approximation to the Indian rliinoceros, that it is much to be 

 wished that the specimen had not been so broken as to prevent 

 additional measurements being derived from it. Excepting in the length 

 from the articulating head to the bottom of the internal condyle, it does 

 not much diifer from fig. 5. The bone, however, being imperfect, 

 must be omitted in drawing a comparison between the fossil and existing 

 species. 



Fig. 1 varies most from the Indian rhinoceros in the proportion of 

 the length taken to the internal condyle — an anomaly difficult of ex23la- 

 nation. We must here repeat, that there exists a necessity for a greater 

 number of tables of dimensions taken from the skeletons of the Indian 

 rhinoceros. The anterior extremity of a rhinoceros, with the exami- 

 nation of which we have been favoured, yielded proportions so nearly 

 corresponding with those deduced from the fossil humerus, figs. 1, 2, 

 as to prevent our drawing more positive conclusions than those ex- 

 pressed at the close of the remarks on the cranium, PI. XV. 



Posterior Extremity. 



The femur and tibia, PI. XVIII., were dug up in such close proximity 

 to the humerus and radius, fig. 1, PI. XVII., that little doubt could be 

 entertained of their having belonged to the same animal. Being perfect, 

 except at the lower jDart of the great trochanter, the specimen affords 

 ample means of comparison with the femur of the existing sj^ecies. 



On reverting to the Table of Dimensions, it will be observed that this 

 fossil exceeds, as did also the humerus, any of those in Cuvier's table 

 of existing species. The following columns show in what respects the 

 proportions of the bone vary from those deduced from Cuvier's Indian 

 rhinoceros. The length of the femur is here the modulus. 



From a comparison of the two first columns in the annexed table there 

 results that the fossil has a greater development at its ujiper, and a 

 somewhat less development at its lower extremity, than is the case in the 

 Indian rhinoceros. The third trochanter is set lower down, and the 

 inferior extremity of the small trochanter higher up than in the existing 



