348 



RHINOCEROS. 



molars, and he contrasts the second with an antepenultimate 

 premolar (fig. 136, op. tit.), also natural size, of the Clacton 

 species. The difference both in size and form between the 

 two is assuredly very great, and if the comparison were well 

 founded and sound, it would furnish a strongly marked dis- 

 tinctive character of the species ; but it appears to me, that 

 in this case this eminent palseontologist has fallen into the 

 error of comparing the milk tooth of one jaw with the corre- 

 sponding permanent premolar of another. The Clacton 

 tooth is unquestionably a permanent premolar of the second 

 set; but the Lawford jaw (figs. 128 and 137, op. tit.) contains 

 four teeth, presenting as it seems to me the characters of 

 milk molars. Without going, on the present occasion, into the 

 details of the evidence for this conclusion, I may state ^that I 

 have compared the figure of the pre-antepenultimate (p. 1 of 

 Cut 137, above referred to) with the pre-antepenultimate milk 

 molar of a very young jaw of Rhin. hemitcechus, in Col. 

 Wood's collection from ' Minchin Hole,' and found them 

 agree in size and form, to the most minute particulars. 

 Brandt, with access to the rich collections in the Eussian 

 Museums, distinctly states, in his monograph on the Siberian 

 Rhinoceros, that he had never seen an adult lower jaw 

 of this species showing more than six molars, thus con- 

 firming the early inference of Cuvier. The definite settle- 

 ment of this point, when well ascertained, will be of much 

 greater importance than merely determining the precise 

 number of inferior molars in an extinct species. Hence 

 the reference to it now. The presence of seven lower 

 molars in the lower jaw from Cromer furnishes of itself, 

 independently of the other evidence, strong grounds, to my 

 mind, in favour of the specimen being referable to the 

 ' Rhinoceros a narines non-cloisonees,' and not to Rhin. 

 tichorhinus. It will be a remarkable fact in Geology if it is 

 proved that the latter species was a contemporary of the 

 Sub-Apennine Elephas meridionalis, as well as of the Glacial 

 Mammoth. 1 



1 The above was written in 1860. 

 The Rhinoceros of the Val cl'Arno 

 and of the 'Submarine Forest-bed of 



the Norfolk Coast' was subsequently- 

 designated by Dr. Falconer Rhin. 

 Etruscus. See pp. 310 and 355. — [Ed.] 



