INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 311 



reasonable objection to the name Rhinoceros anUquitatis. South 

 of the Shine, that is in Geneva, France, and Italy, all modern 

 palaeontologists call the species Rhinoceros tichorinus ; but, 

 north of the Rhine, in Germany, Holland, Scandinavia, and 

 Russia, the most eminent authorities designate it Rhinoceros 

 anUquitatis. A name in science ought not to be a disputed 

 point of mere geographical predilection. Blumenbach named 

 it first Rhinoceros anUquitatis. Fischer de Waldheim, a pa- 

 laeontologist of no great authority, changed the name into 

 Rhinoceros tichorinus, and Cuvier adopted Fischer's name 

 without acknowledgment. Desmarest called it Rhinoceros 

 Pallasii. Blumenbach's names of Elephas primigenius and 

 Mastodon Ohioticus are now accepted by everyone ; and there 

 is no reason why his Rhinoceros anUquitatis should be rejected 

 for a more modern name. Living neither north nor south of 

 the Ehine, I have no geographical predilections, and as an 

 impartial foreigner I accept the earliest name, viz. Blumen- 

 bach's; besides, the name Rhinoceros tichorinus is faulty, 

 inasmuch as three species had a nasal septum. 

 I. — On Rhinoceros hemitcechus, an extinct species 



PREVAILING IN THE GOWEE CAVES, SOUTH WALES. 1 



In two previous communications (Quart. Journ. Geol. 

 Soc. for Nov. 1857, and vol. xiv. p. 81), 2 I have attempted to 

 trace the distribution of the fossil Proboscidea, with some of 

 their constant associates, in the newer Tertiary deposits of 

 England, and in corresponding deposits on the continent of 

 Europe. One important branch of the inquiry concerns the 

 fossil remains of the ossiferous caves ; but my examination 

 of the cave -collections was not, at the time, sufficiently ex- 

 tended to warrant well-founded conclusions on the subject. 

 I had seen undoubted evidence of the occurrence of Elephas 

 antiquus and Hippopotamus major — both Pliocene forms — in 

 several of the English caverns ; but I was in doubt regarding 

 the associated fossil species of Rhinoceros. Since then I 

 have had opportunities of examining most of the great cave- 

 collections in the metropolitan and provincial museums, and 

 of investigating, on the spot, the conditions under which the 

 remains were associated in several of the most productive 

 caverns. Some of the results appear to be of sufficient interest 

 to warrant my bringing them before the Society, 3 although 

 with less detail of evidence, and in a more restricted form, 

 than the nature of the case might seem to demand. But the 

 general subject is so extensive in its relations as hardly to 



1 The MS. of this essay -was found 3 The paper was evidently intended 

 among Dr. Falconer's papers, and is now for presentation to the Geological 

 for the first time published. — [Ed.] Society.— [Ed.] 



2 See antca, pp. 1 and 76.— [En.] 



