GIEBEL ON FOSSIL RHINOCEROS REMAINS. 11 



'Memoires du Museum' (vol. vii. 1806), Cuvier gave a full account 

 of the osteology of the species of Rhinoceros then known to him ; 

 and here the Siberian Rhinoceros was recognized by distinct and im- 

 portant characters, as a peculiar species. Hitherto this had been 

 known as the " Siberian Rhinoceros." In his * Archseologia,' and a 

 year later in his * Natural History,' Blumenbach gave it the specific 

 name of Rh. antiquitatis, and Fischer, in his *Zoognosia,' 1814, 

 changed it to Rh. tichorhinus, which latter has been accepted by 

 Cuvier and all later writers. 



Cuvier' s extensive researches facilitated the specific determination 

 of fossil remains of the Rhinoceros, and these were everywhere more 

 carefully studied. The next important discovery took place in 1811, 

 in the Vale of the Arno, a report of which was given in a letter from 

 Philip Nesti to Targioni Tozetti. Cortesi also described*, in 1819, 

 a nearly perfect skeleton which he found in the Subapennine Hills, 

 in the Placentin. In that Part of Cuvier's *Ossemens Fossiles ' 

 published in 1822, this species received the name of Rh. leptorhinus^ 

 and together vdth it also the incisor-teeth figured by Merk, besides 

 a similar tooth from Avaray, were determined as belonging to Rh. 

 incisivus ; and a Rh. minutus^ from Moissac, was, from its smaller 

 size, less positively determined. The fine skull from Montpellier, to 

 which Marcel Serres, in the * Journal de Physique,' 1819, had given 

 the specific appellation of Rh. monspessula7ius, was referred by Cu- 

 vier to Rh. tichorhinus. Whilst the last volume of the ' Ossemens 

 Fossiles ' was in the press, 1825, Cuvier received, through Schleier- 

 macher, drawings of the skull and jaw discovered near Eppelsheim, 

 by which he was confirmed in his opinion of the near alliance of the 

 Rh. incisivus to the living Sumatran species. After the publication of 

 Cuvier's osteological researches, the number of the species increased 

 so much in a few years, that when Pander and D' Alton, in their 

 beautiful work on the Skeletons of the Mammalia, endeavoured to 

 reduce the number, they were far from meeting with general appro- 

 bation. Henceforth scarcely a year passed without the announcement 

 of new localities for fossil Rhinoceros bones being discovered. Then 

 came that unfortunate sera of uncriticised Palaeontology, 1830-43, 

 which produced a whole host of new Rhinoceroses. 



Immediately after the publication of the ' Ossemens Fossiles,' 1 825, 

 Baker and Durant noticed the discovery of fossil Rhinoceros remains 

 in the tertiary beds of the Sub-Himalayas, which, ten years later, they 

 ascribe to Rh. unicornis fossilis. In 1828 Clift and Buckland men- 

 tion this species, from the Irawady, and subsequently Cautley and Fal- 

 coner, from the Sub-Himalayas, under the name Rh. angustirictus or 

 sivalensis. Croizet and Jobert in 1828 pointed out one of the fossil 

 bones from Auvergne as having belonged to a slender and long-legged 

 species, Rh. elatus. On some unworn teeth of Rh. tichorhinus^ from 

 the Loes of the valley of the Rhine, Bronn made his genus Codo- 

 donta f , which after a short existence again disappeared. In the 

 same year Harlan J instituted his Rhinoceroides AlleghanensiSy from a 



* Saggi Geologic!. t Jahrb. f. Min. u. s. w. 1831. 



% American Monthly J ournal of Geology. 



c 2 



