RHINOCEROS HEMITCECHUS. 321 



lated between septum and no septum. The array of autho- 

 rities on either side was nearly balanced, with the exception 

 of a discreet few headed by De Blainville, who followed the 

 convenient via media and argued that the character was of 

 little importance, being but a degree, more or less, of ossi- 

 fication of the nasal cartilage, and that, according to circum- 

 stances of age, sex, or vigour in the species, might, or might 

 not, have had the partition ossified. Considering that the 

 cranium upon which Cuvier relied has been deposited during 

 nearly half a century in one or other public museum hi Milan, 

 on the high road of continental travel, it might have been 

 expected that the disputed point would have been speedily 

 settled by an appeal to the original specimen. But until 

 the appearance of Oivelli's evidence in 1842, confirmed by 

 Cornalia in 1854, the Cortesi cranium, upon which the case 

 rested, does not appear to have been examined by any one of 

 the numerous palaeontologists all over Europe who took a 

 share in the dreary discussion. 



It will be admitted that an essay to determine with pre- 

 cision a single form, out of such a class of confused synonymy 

 and perplexed opinions, will be of some service to Pala3onto- 

 logy. This I shall endeavour to do with the Clacton species, 

 hitherto described under the name of Rhin. leptorhinus ; and it 

 has appeared to me to be better to give it a new specific 

 name, than to attempt to identify it conjecturally with some 

 one of the names that have already been proposed for forms 

 supposed to be different from the Rhin. leptorhinus of Cuvier. 

 The ad interim designation, suggested by Duvernoy, for the 

 Clacton species of Rhin. protichorhinus, is manifestly inadmis- 

 sible. Whether Rhinoceros hemitoechus may not be identical 

 with some of the materials figured and described by Kaup, 

 under the name of Rhin. Merckii, I am unable to determine 

 satisfactorily. The upper molars from Chagny and Crozes, 

 figured by Cuvier, which Kaup refers to that species, differ 

 materially in the form of the ' crochet,' a character of great 

 significance, from those of Rhin. hemitoechus. The same un- 

 certainty applies to the Atelodus Aymardi of Pomel, from the 

 Velay, so named in his ' Catalogue Methodique,' but without 

 figures or sufficient distinctive characters to establish the 

 species. Rhinoceros hemitoechus certainly differs from Rhin. 

 leptorhinus of Cuvier, as founded on Cortesi's cranium, which 

 I have examined, both in the dental characters and form of the 

 skull, and also in the general proportions of the skeleton ; 

 and it differs equally from the Rhinoceros megarhinus of De 

 Christol, skulls and other remains of which I have examined at 

 Lyons and Montpellier. If the distinctness of the species is 

 established, and its range hi time and geographical distribu- 



VOL. II. Y 



