XXX INTRODUCTION. 



of the great Arctic Sea. Cuvier also mentions it as having been found in Italy ;i but his 

 determination is, in our opinion, open to considerable doubt. In Britain, Professor Owen^ 

 describes its remains as occurring in the forest-bed of Cromer ; and in the caverns and 

 river-deposits its bones and teeth are very generally found. In Ireland no remains of 

 any of the four species have as yet been determined, nor could we detect any trace of them 

 in the Museums, on a journey for that express purpose. The species is characterised by 

 the possession of two horns ; an osseous septum between its nares, that completely divides 

 the one from the other ; by the presence of the anterior comhincj -plate in the permanent 

 upper molar series and of tico costa on the anterior area of the lower,' by the stoutness of 

 its bones and a very great many other points to be found in the essays of Professors 

 Brandt,* Owen,^ Mr. Dawkins,^ and M. de Christol.'' Defended from the cold by hair, 

 and with a hide entirely without those hideous wrinkles that disfigure the living species, 

 this animal ranged throughout the regions of the great Pleistocene continent north of a line 

 passing through the Pyrennees eastwards through Switzerland to the northern end of the 

 Caspian, thence along the watershed of the River Irtish through Lake Baikal as far as the 

 Jablonoi and Stanovoi Mountains, and most probably up to Behring's Straits. 



Species Bhinoceros leptorhimis, Owen.*' — The remains of the non-tichorhine species 

 of rhinoceros remained in the greatest confusion up to the year 1835. Baron Cuvier, so 

 far back as the year 1813, had divided the non-tichorhine rhinoceros into three species, B. 

 leptorhinus, B. mimdiis, and B. incisivus. The B. leptor/iinus, with which alone Ave have 

 to do, he based upon a skull found in the Pliocene of the Val d'Arno, of which he had a 

 drawing sent him by Professor Cortesi, which he gives in the first edition of the " Osseraens 

 Possiles." In this drawing, the osseous septum between the nares was absent, and from its 

 absence,^ coupled with the slenderness of certain long bones found in the same deposit, 

 and with different proportions of the skull as compared with the tichorhine species, he 

 inferred the existence of a second species, B. leptorln?ius or " rldnoceros a narines non- 

 cloisonnees." This determination was accepted without question by the scientific world 

 until the year 1835, when M. de Christol proved that the very skull described as a narines 

 non-cloisonnees^^ possessed the osseous septum between the nares, and that therefore Baron 



^ Op. cit., torn, ii, p. 73, pi. ix, fig. 10. 



2 Op. cit., p. 3 17. 



3 'Nat. Hist. Rev.,' (18()3) xii, p. 552. 



* " De Rhinocerotis Antiquitatis seu Tichorliini seu Pallasii structural." ' Trans, de St.-Petersburg, 

 vol. vii, pt. 2. 4to, 1849. 



5 Op. cit., p. 325. 



6 ' Nat. Hist. Rev.,' 1863. 



7 ' Ann. de Sci. Nat.,' 2e serie, t. 4, 1835. 



8 Op. cit., 356. 



9 Op. cit., torn, ii, pp. 71-2, pi. ix, fig. 7. 



10 It is indeed very hard to reconcile the figure given by M. de Christol (op. cit., pi. ii, fig. 4) with an 

 incidental remark of Dr. Falconer. In his masterly " Treatise on the Mastodon and Elephant," (' Quart. 



