RHINOCEROS LEPTORIIINU&" 385 



the teeth resembles in its pearly aspect that of the molars of Rhinoceros 

 Etruscus, in the Museum at Florence. It is important to remark in 

 reference to the measurements, that on the right side the penultimate 

 does not overlap the first true molar, there being three-tenths of an 

 inch interval between. There is nearly the same interval between the 

 antepenultimate true molar and the last premolar, and also between the 

 third and fourth premolar, showing that these molars have been dis- 

 placed, and giving undue length to the measurement of the entire series 

 on the right side. They are in their natural state of apposition on the 

 left side. The length of the series, from the anterior end of the second 

 premolar to the posterior maz'gin of the second true molar, which in- 

 chides five teeth, amounts exactly to 10*2 inches, and from the anterior 

 border of the first premolar to the same point behind, to 109 inches 

 (or nearly 11 inches). 



Obs. 2. — Cortesi's figure in the ' Saggi Geologici ' (PI. VII.) is appa- 

 rently of the left side (the nasals and symphysis pointing to the left, the 

 occiput to the right); but the figure is exhibited reversed, and in reality 

 it represents the right side. The same remark applies to fig. 7, PI. 

 IX. Rhin. of the ' Ossemens Fossiles,' professing to be on the scale of one- 

 sixth of the natural size. The lower jaw, which is placed in relative 

 position below the cranium in both these cited figures, is also figured 

 reversed. Cuvier asserts that his engraving was made after drawings 

 sent by Adolphe Brongniart, and these have hitherto been assumed to 

 have been originals ; but it is clearly manifest that Brongniart's is 

 merely a copy of Cortesi's figure. The uncouth lower jaw is fore- 

 shortened precisely alike in both, so as to show the line of molars on 

 both sides, both coronoid processes, both sigmoid notches, and both 

 condyles. In fact the figures are so much alike that it is impossible to 

 doubt that the one was copied from the other. There is the same nick 

 to the broken edge of the left coronoid process, and to the broken end 

 of the incisive bone. The principal differences are, that the mastoid 

 shown in Cortesi's figure is omitted by Brongniart ; that the rim of the 

 orbit and the outline of the zygomatic arch, together with the shading 

 of the orbital cavity and zygomatic fossa, are better defined by Brong- 

 niart than in Cortesi's figure. The uncouth occipital pyramid rising 

 into a conical peak, and evidently exaggerated in Cortesi's figure, is less 

 salient and more naturally represented by Brongniart. As regards the 

 lower jaw, Cortesi's figure represents a salient mass of matrix on the 

 lower margin of the jaw, below the penultimate figured tooth {i.e. 

 t.m. 1), all of which is omitted by Brongniart, who gives a clear 

 outline to the lower margin. But this mass is still undisturbed with 

 the rest of the matrix, as when left by Cortesi. 



Obs. 3. — De Christol, in his remarks upon Brongniart's figure of the 

 lower jaw, passes some severe strictures upon the low height and little 

 projection of the coronoid process above the alveolar margin, &c. 

 But these are all explained away by the fact that a great deal of matrix 

 is still left enveloping the jaw, and that a part only of the crowns of the 

 two last molars that are in situ emerge above the cake of matrix. 

 When the natural object is compared with fig. 5 of De Christol's draw- 

 ing (profile) it is manifest that there is a great general agreement of 

 form between the Montpellier and Milan specimens, and even an inex- 

 perienced observer would at once remark the similarity of the sym- 

 physial expansion in both. 



VOL. II. C C 



