84 FOSSIL MAMMALIA. 



dant. Both are most generally found together, but the teeth 

 of the rhinoceros, being less voluminous, have been less gene- 

 rally remarked. These animals have not the enormous ivory 

 tusks of the other, which could not fail, in all cases, of attracting 

 attention ; and most probably, in many instances, these consti- 

 tuted the motive to form collections of elephantine remains. 



Having remarked that the bones of the rhinoceros are gene- 

 rally found in the same strata, and very often in the very same 

 places as those of the elephant, we may observe, that there 

 exist two, or perhaps three, large species, without reckoning 

 one or two much smaller than the others. But, says the 

 Baron, as this distinction is recent, it would be difficult to 

 introduce an historical detail of the particular places where the 

 specific bones were found. It will be sufficient to observe, 

 that the major part of those which have been found in middle 

 and northern Europe, as well as in Asia, belong to the species 

 most anciently discovered, in which the nostrils are separated 

 by an osseous partition ; that it is only in Italy that fragments 

 incontestably belonging to the other species, in which the nos- 

 trils are not separated, by bone, have hitherto been discovered ; 

 and finally, that we know nothing of the third large species, 

 and of the small ones, but by some pieces belonging to each, 

 found in a single spot. 



The first specimens of the fossil rhinoceros mentioned by 

 writers were found in England, near Canterbury. They are 

 described in the Philosophical Transactions, 1701. In the 

 number were two teeth of the rhinoceros, which the author of 

 the article believed to belong to the hippopotamus. 



South of the Hartz, on the side of Hanover, were discovered 

 in 1751 a number of remarkably large bones. They were 

 first believed to belong to the elephant, but Hollman showed, 

 by comparison with the descriptions of that animal then pub- 

 lished, that this could not be the case. The description of the 

 skull of the hippopotamus, given, in 1724, by Antoine de Jus- 

 sieu, excluded this animal ; and finally, Mickel having com- 



