RHINOCEROS HEMITCECHUS. 



315 



cipe de cloison descendante qui aurait pu etre detruite. 

 Enfin je suis sur, et je vous assure que le crane que nous con- 

 servons n'appartient pas au B. tichorhinus, et qu'on a eu tort 

 de confondre les deux especes. Le regard de M. Cuvier etait 

 bien plus percant et tonibait plus justement dans le vrai.' * 

 Christol erased Bh. leptorhinus from the list of fossil species, 

 and at the same time proposed the name of Bhinoceros mega- 

 rhinus for the remains of a two-horned fossil species occur- 

 ring in the Pliocene Sands of Montpellier, and characterized 

 by the great length of the nasal bones ; by the short in- 

 terval between the nasal sinus and the orbits ; by the slight 

 elevation of the pyramid of the vertex above the plane of 

 the brow ; by the inconsiderable inclination of the occipital 

 plane, which is abruptly truncated at the vertex ; by the 

 relative position of the orbits, and by peculiarities in the 

 teeth. Marcel de Serres had previously endeavoured to dis- 

 tinguish the same form under the name of the ' Fossil Rhino- 

 ceros of Montpellier' (Bhinoceros Monspessulanus, De Blainv.) ; 

 but gave way to the dissent expressed by Cuvier, who iden- 

 tified it with his ' Bhinoceros a, narines cloisonees.' Christol 

 was further led to the conclusion that the Bhinoceros incisi- 

 vus of Cuvier was identical with his Bhinoc. megarhinus. 



From a remark by Laurillard, it would appear that at a 

 later date Christol was convinced that his opinion respecting 

 Bhin. leptorhinus was erroneous ; but no formal expression of 

 this altered view having been published, the objections which 

 he had raised continued for a considerable time to influence 

 the opinions of palaeontologists. 



Croizet and Jobert, in 1828, described and figured remains 

 of a Bhinoceros from Puy-de-D6me, which from its general 

 slender proportions they designated Bhinoceros elatus. ~No 

 perfect cranium of this form has as yet been discovered in the 

 Velay; and the jaws and teeth at present known are not 

 sufficiently pronounced to determine with certainty whether 

 Bhinoceros elatus is distinct, or to what nominal species it 

 ought to be referred. De Blainville identified it with the 

 Miocene Bhinoceros incisivus ! Laurillard doubted whether it 

 ought to be referred to B. megarhinus or to B. leptorhinus ; 

 Pomel refers it to his Atelodus elatus, which includes Bhinoc. 

 elatus, together with Bhinoc. megarhinus of Christol ; and 

 Gervais hesitatingly refers it, together with Owen's form of 



1 Tho first authoritative correction of 

 Christol' s statement was made in 1842, 

 by Professor Balsamo Crivelli, tho 

 curator of the Museum of Santa Teresa 

 in Milan, where the specimen was pre- 

 served. He states, that the supposed 

 partition was absolutoly wanting, and 



explains tho cause of the mistake. But 

 the correction escaped the notice of 

 European Paleontologists until 1853, 

 when Dr. Cornalia of Milan, at the 

 request of Duvornoy, re-submitted the 

 Cortosi cranium to a rigid examination. 



