220 PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY. [Feb. 20, 



enamel. The amount of attrition to which this tooth has been sub- 

 ject is about the same as that of the teeth of the Rhinoceros ticho- 

 rhinus figured by Cuvicr in the *Ossemens Fossiles/ tom. ii. pi. 6. 

 figs. 1 & 2. But, whereas it is the shorter posterior valley which is 

 still uninsulated in the crag-tooth (fig. 2), the long internal valley is 

 the one which retains the narrow continuity of enamel in the molar 

 teeth figured by Cuvier ; moreover, these teeth show the third island 

 due to the separation of the hinder divison of the expanding and bi- 

 furcating valley by in the Rhinoceros tichorhinns, whilst no trace of 

 the third enamel-island exists in the crag-molar in question. This 

 molar, moreover, shows a well-developed internal basal ridge, /, com- 

 mencing, as in the foregoing crag- tooth, fig. 1, near the middle of the 

 anterior surface, and rising as it extends along to the inner surface 

 to terminate at the postero-internal angle of the crown. 



From the above characters it may be concluded that the portion of 

 the upper molar, fig. 2, from the crag-pit near Felixstow, Suffolk, 

 does not belong to the Rhinoceros tichorhinuSy but to a species more 

 nearly allied to, if not identical with, either the Rhinoceros mega* 

 rhinus or the Rhinoceros Schleiertnacheri, 



The third example of the upper molar oi Rhinoceros^ from the 

 Suffolk Red Crag, fig. 3, is from the left side, and had been but 

 little used in mastication, — not more, for example, than the tooth 

 of the Rhinoceros leptorhinus, from the Clacton pleistocene, fig. 141, 

 p. 373, of my 'History of British Fossil Mammals,' and to about 

 the same extent as the premolar teeth of the Rhinoceros Schleier- 

 tnacheri, figured by Prof. Kaup in tab. 11. fig. 7, of his most useful 

 Illustrations of the Fossils of Darmstadt. In the disposition of the 

 enamel-folds, the present crag- tooth so closely accords with the upper 

 molars of the miocene Rhinoceros {Rh. Schleiertnacheri), that I am 

 strongly inclined to regard it as belonging to that species ; I have not, 

 however, had the opportunity of comparing it with an upper molar 

 of the Rhinoceros tnegarhinus in the same stage of attrition. 



The valley, h, as in the Rhinoceros Schleiermacheri, after pene- 

 trating along a line parallel with the anterior border, two-thirds 

 across the crown, suddenly bends backwards at a right angle ; the 

 commencement of the valley is very wide and deep. The posterior 

 valley a is triangular, and in form and place closely resembles that 

 in tlie Rhinoceros Schleiertnacheri, The position of the longitudinal 

 ridge d' accords with that in the crag-tooth, fig. 1, and with that in 

 the upper molars of both Rhinoceros Schleiermacheri and Rh. tnega- 

 rhinus. The basal ridge/ extends as far along the fore part of the 

 crown as in the Rh. Schleiermacheri, and it is continued, as in some 

 premolars of that species, around the inner side of the lobe c. The 

 basal ridge is confined to the fore part of the crown in the Rhinoceros 

 leptorhinus. 



In all the characters in which the present crag-molar resembles 

 those of the Rhinoceros Schleiertnacheri it differs from those of the 

 Rh. tichorhinus. 



The lower molar teeth of Rhinoceros from the Suffolk Crag are 

 more numerous than the upper ones. Unfortunately they arc less 



