352 PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY. [April 8, 



some of which I shall now state. Professor Owen, having satisfied 

 himself that the Mastodon of the Crag was identical with the Miocene 

 species of Eppelsheim, was naturally predisposed, where the evidence 

 was at all ambiguous or indecisive, to regard the remains of the other 

 fossil Mammalia with a leaning towards a Miocene origin. First, as 

 regards the Rhinoceros ; the European fossil species of this genus, 

 including Acerotherium^ are at present involved in such a maze of con- 

 fused synonymy that no two living palaeontologists are agreed about 

 the number, or upon the names which ought to be applied to them. 

 In consequence, it is exceedingly difficult to arrive at any satisfactory 

 conclusion where a fossil Rhinoceros older than the Siberian species 

 forms an element of the discussion. In the ' British Fossil Mam- 

 malia*,' Professor Owen adopts the opinion of Christol, that Rh. 

 Schleiermacheri and Hh. megarhinus are synonyms of the same 

 species, the former having been founded by Kaup upon Miocene 

 remains discovered at Eppelsheim, the latter by Christol upon 

 Pliocene remains from Montpellier : from his late memoir it would 

 appear that he now considers them distinct, and he leans doubtingly 

 towards the opinion that the Crag molars of this genus, upper and 

 lower, belong to the Miocene Rhin. Schleiennacheri, rather than to 

 Rh. megarhinus. But without going into details, it may be stated 

 that these teeth present no characters, so far as they have been 

 described, inconsistent with their being referred to the so-called Rhin. 

 megarhinus of the South of France and Italy. The premolars possess 

 the basal "bourrelet" which Christol pointed out as one of the di- 

 stinguishing marks of his RMn. megarhinus : it occurs, as stated by 

 Professor Owen, in the same teeth of Rhin. Schleiermacheri, and it 

 is met with also in the premolars of the Rhin. leptorhinus of Cuvier. 

 Further, it would seem to be clearly established now, that Cuvier was 

 quite correct in characterizing his Rhin. leptorhinus as destitute of a 

 nasal bony septum, and that Christol was misled by the deceptive 

 appearance of a drawing in assigning this peculiarity to the original 

 Italian specimen, and confounding it with Rhin. tichorhinus'\ . There 

 are also the strongest grounds for beliexdng that the Rhin. megarhinus 

 of the Pliocene sands of Montpellier is specifically identical with 

 Rhin. lejitorhinus of Cuvier. The Red Crag specimens, figured and 

 described by Professor Owen, are undoubtedly very like the corre- 

 sponding teeth of Rhin. Schleiermacheri ; but it seems to me that 

 the materials are not sufficient to establish a satisfactory pal?eon- 

 tological identification, and that it is at present an open question 

 whether they belong to Rhin. leptorhinus of Cuvier, or to Rhin. 

 Schleiermacheri of Kaup. The same remark applies to the Tapir of 



* Op. cit. p. 370. 



f Cornalia, in Diivernoy's " Nouvelles Etudes sur les Rhinoc. Fossiles" (Archiv. 

 du Museum, torn. vii. p. 99). He describes the original specimen, which is de- 

 posited in the Natural History Museum at ]\I)lan, as perfectly free from any trace 

 of a bony septum, whether along the median hue of the nasals, or upon the floor 

 of the nasal cavity. Christol, not having had access to the specimen, misinter- 

 preted a shaded portion of a drawing of it as a representation of the septum. 

 Dr. Cornalia's remarks confirm, in every essential respect, the previous descrip- 

 tion by Cuvier. 



