458 PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY. [Apr. 27, 
The above appear to have been the only Rhinocerine remains 
discovered at Oreston; for, although in 1823 a further set of 
caverns was laid open, whose contents have been ably described by 
Mr. Clift in the ‘ Philosophical Transactions’ for 1824, nothing 
belonging to Rhinoceros was there found *. 
The specimens enumerated by Sir EK. Home are about twenty- 
two in number ; but this cannot have included all that were sent by 
Mr. Whidbey, since the number of specimens assigned to the lo- 
cality in the Catalogue of the Museum of the Royal College of 
Surgeons, where they are deposited, is thirty-eight or thirty-nine. 
They are numbered from 877 to 916. The tooth mentioned by Sir 
K. Home as having been found in the second cavern does not 
appear to be among them; and one of the numbered specimens 
(897) is not at present forthcoming. 
As regards condition and colour, with one or two exceptions, the 
specimens have a very uniform aspect; and it is highly probable 
that Professor Owen is right in assigning them all to a single indi- 
vidual. 
Sir E. Home imagined that the glenoid cavity of the scapula was 
too small in proportion to the head of the corresponding humerus, 
and that a detached olecranon belonged to a still smaller indivi- 
dual. But as regards the scapula in question, there does not appear 
to be any reason to concur in this suggestion ; and as I have been un- 
able to find the detached olecranon, I can offer no opinion respect- 
ing it. Most of the other epiphyses of the larger long bones are 
detached, which is in favour of the supposition that the ulna may 
have formed part of the same skeleton, of an individual which had 
not attained to full maturity. 
It should be observed, however, on the point of age, that the 
complete union of the distal epiphysis of the humerus and of that 
of the metacarpals, and the much worn condition of the teeth, show 
that the animal must have reached pretty nearly its full stature ; 
and if the rate of the development of the bones was the same as in 
the Elephant, it was probably somewhere about twenty years old. It 
must be confessed, however, that the teeth, for some reason, appear 
to be rather unduly worn for that age. 
Sir Everard Home, as might be expected from the period at 
which he wrote, made no attempt to discriminate the species to which 
the remains belonged, unless we may interpret his expression re- 
specting the tooth found in the second cavern as implying that he 
regarded them as belonging to Rhinoceros wucornis. Nor does 
Cuvier, when referring to Sir Everard Home’s paper, make any 
remark on this point. 
* In ‘British Fossil Mammals’ (p. 343), it is stated, with reference to the 
Rhinoceros-bones, that most of the parts recovered from this cavern were de- 
termined by Mr. Clift. But this does not appear to be the case. The remains 
described, and so beautifully figured by Mr. Clift, are those which occurred in 
the third set of caverns in the year 1823, and which, as above stated, did not 
afford any Rhinocerine remains. ‘The bones forwarded to Sir Joseph Banks 
were ‘‘determined” by Sir Everard Home, and not by Mr. Clift. 
