56 BRITISH AND EUROPEAN FOSSIL MASTODONS. 



them distinct, and he leans doubtingly towards the opinion 

 that the Crag molars of this genus, upper and lower, belong 

 to the Miocene Rhin. Schleiermacheri, rather than to Rhin. 

 megarhinus. But without going into details, it may be stated 

 that these teeth present no characters, so far as they have 

 been described, inconsistent with their being referred to the 

 so-called Rhin. megarhinus of the South of France and Italy. 

 The premolars possess the basal ' bourrelet ' which Christol 

 pointed out as one of the distinguishing marks of his Rhin. 

 megarhinus ; it occurs, as stated by Professor Owen, in the 

 same teeth of Rhin. Schleiermacheri, and it is met with also in 

 the premolars of the Rhin. leptorhinus of Cuvier. Further, it 

 would seem to be clearly established now, that Cuvier was 

 quite correct in characterizing his Rhin. leptorhinus as 

 destitute of a nasal bony septum, and that Christol was misled 

 by the deceptive appearance of a drawing in assigning this 

 peculiarity to the original Italian specimen, and confounding 

 it with Rhin. tichorhinus. 1 There are also the strongest 

 grounds for believing that the Rhin. megarhinus of the 

 Pliocene sands of Montpellier is specifically identical with 

 Rhin. leptorhinus of Cuvier. The Eed Crag specimens, figured 

 and described by Professor Owen, are undoubtedly very like 

 the corresponding teeth of Rhin. Schleiermacheri ; but it seems 

 to me that the materials are not sufficient to establish a 

 satisfactory palseontological identification, and that it is at 

 present an open question whether they belong to Rhin. 

 leptorhinus of Cuvier, or to Rhin. Schleiermacheri of Kanp. 

 The same remark applies to the Tapir of the Red Crag, which 

 Prof. Owen refers, on the evidence of a single upper and sin- 

 gle lower molar, to the Miocene Tapirus priscus of Kaup. 

 Pliocene species of Tapir have been met with both in Italy 

 and France, one of which has been named T. Arvernensis 

 (Croizet and Jobert), and the other T. elegans 2 (Pomel) ; and 

 a supposed third species, T. minor of Marcel de Serres, has 

 been yielded by the marine sands of Montpellier. 3 The 

 adduced evidence would seem hardly sufficient to establish 

 that the Crag molars do not belong to either of these. 



1 Cornalia, in Duvernoy's ' Nouvelles Dr. Comalia's remarks confirm, in every 

 Etudes sur les Rhinoc. Fossiles' (Archiv. essential respect, the previous description 

 du Museum, torn. vii. p. 99). He de- i by Cuvier. 



scribes the original specimen, which is I 2 Pomel, Catal. Method, et Descript. 

 depositedin the Natural Hist ory Museum J p. 84. 



at Milan, as perfectly free from any trace 3 Gervais, Paleontol. Francaise, torn, 

 of a bony septum, whether along the ' ii. p. 4, PI. v. figs. 4 & 5. Gervais 

 median line of the nasals or upon the j doubts, with De Blainville, whether the 

 floor of the nasal cavity. Christol, not I materials are sufficient at present to 

 having had access to the specimen, mis- prove that these Piiocene nominal species 

 interpreted a shaded portion of a drawing j really differ from the Tapirus prisons of 

 of it as a representation of the septum. I Eppelsheim. 



