356 RHINOCEROS. 



and are slightly emarginate and arched at the side, very much as in 

 B. tichorhinus. They send down a A'ertical bony partition, which is 

 deepest in front ; the posterior part is broken, but does not appear to 

 have been ever complete behind (only partial) ; what remains occupies 

 one half of the nasal echanerure. The incisive bones are broken off, 

 but on the right side a considerable portion of the diasteme remains. 

 The arch of the nasals is higher than in S. tichorhinus ; and the greatest 

 height of the septum is in front — the septum being lower behind, which 

 is the very reverse of what is observed in S. tichorhinus. The broken 

 part of the incisives has been badly restored in coloured gypsum, but 

 the join is easily recognizable. Compared with the Lyons skidl of 

 R. megarhinus (Plate XXXI. fig. 3), the Florence head is consider- 

 ably smaller in all its dimensions, and the lower jaw and teeth are in 

 keeping. Viewed from the top, the skull in contour resembles more 

 that of the R. tichorhinus (Cuv., ' Oss. Foss.,' PI. 160, fig. 5, and Gervais 

 of the Montpellier skull, ' Trans. Academ. Montp.' torn. xi. PI. E. fig. 2) 

 than any of the others. Length from about outer margin to occipital 

 crest, 14- in., and from ditto to tip of nasals about 12 - 5 in., or as 7 : 6. 

 The nasal horn rugosity is enormous, projecting greatly at its central 

 nucleus ; then there is a smooth interval of about three inches, and then 

 an indistinct and not much raised rugosity for a second horn. This 

 frontal horn was probably small ; and there is here nothing like the 

 enormous confluent rugosity of R. tichorhinus. The right orbit with rim 

 is nearly entire, but the tubercles are broken off; they are smoothly 

 restored on left side. The maxillary bone on right side is a little 

 crushed below the infra-orbitary foramen. The zygomatic arches are 

 quite entire, thin and high, and but little crushed. The articular 

 surfaces are also entire on both sides. There is only a slight rise for 

 the frontal horn between the orbits. The frontal and sincipital surfaces 

 are smooth, with a tablet showing about the same width as in Gervais, 

 Tab. 11, fig. 2 ; the two bounding ridges are visible but indistinct. 

 (There is some restoration between the temporal arches on both sides.) 

 There is hardly any sincipital pyramid, but the occiput is slightly 

 crushed on the left side. The occipital plane rises nearly vertically, 

 but is overarched at the sides by the projecting occipito- parietal crest, 

 and an easy echanerure in the middle. This part of the skull is formed 

 very much after Gervais' figure above quoted. The occipital plane is 

 wide, and very low as compared with width. (Some little plaster 

 restoration on right side.) 



Florence, \§th May, 1859. 

 The skull of Rhinoceros Etruscus in the Florence Museum has the 

 following characters (see Plates XXVI. and XXVII.) : — 



1. It is smaller and more slender than the horned rhinoceros of 

 Sumatra (Cuv. PI. IX. Shin.). 



2. The cerebral portion is very elongated and shelving behind over 

 a vertical occiput ; it is but little elevated behind. 



8. The skull is very flat from the occipital crest forwards ; there is 

 no pyramid properly so called (vide ' Dimensions '). 



4. The posterior surface of the occiput (when the skull is placed 

 upon the plane of the teeth) is inclined forwards, and is overarched by 

 the shelving occipital crest (Plate XXVI. fig. 1). 



5. The nasal bones are more elongated than in the Cape species; 



