1870. | BUSK—RHINOCEROS OF ORESTON. 459 
In the ‘Catalogue of Fossil Mammalia,’ however, they are as- 
signed to Rhinoceros tichorhinus; and Professor Owen, in ‘ British 
Fossil Mammals’ (p. 343), notices and partially describes them under 
the head of that species, with which, in fact, they appear to have 
been associated by all paleontologists who have since had occasion 
to refer to them, with the exception of Dr. Falconer, who seems to 
have fully recognized the non-tichorhine character, at any rate, of 
the teeth. But he has left no remarks respecting the other bones *. 
_ It nevertheless appears to me abundantly clear that neither the 
teeth nor the bones present any tichorhine character, but, on the 
contrary, that they are plainly referable to the widely different 
great southern form, &. leptorhinus, Cuv. (1. megarhinus, Christ.t). 
The Oreston collection therefore acquires very great interset, not 
only as adding another to the as yet scanty instances of the occur- 
rence of that species anywhere in Britain, but more especially as 
affording the only recorded example of its discovery in a cavern of 
any kind—a fact the more remarkable, perhaps, since no vestige 
of its remains has occurred in the Brixham cave, nor has as yet, I 
believe, been detected in Kent’s Hole, where, more particularly, we 
might have expected to meet with an associate of the Drepanodon. 
I will now proceed to state the proofs which appear to me cal- 
culated to support the conclusion at which I have arrived. 
* It is only since my attention was lately directed to these remains, that I 
noticed a brief remark extracted from one of his note-books, and given in his 
invaluable ‘ Paleontographical Memoirs’ (vol. i. p. 858), which shows that his 
acute and practised eye had long ago (1859) discerned the distinction between 
the Oreston teeth and those of R. tichorhinus. His words are, “ they are quite 
unlike 2. téchorhinus; and I believe they agree with fr. hemitechus.” 
Although unable, for reasons herein assigned, to agree with my lamented 
friend in the latter supposition, it was very satisfactory to find that my own 
opinion regarding the non-tichorhine relations of the teeth was supported by his 
eminent authority. 
+ It is to be hoped that the long-standing dispute about the proper appella- 
tion of this species, may now be considered finally settled. M. Christol’s 
mistaken interpretation of the figures of Cortesi’s skull has been fully ex- 
plained and satisfactorily refuted. The identity, also, of that skull with the 
three so-called megarhine skulls that have at different times been disinterred 
near Montpellier has, as it seems to me, been completely established by the di- 
rect personal examination and comparison of them by Dr. Falconer; and it is, 
I believe, admitted by all, or nearly all, living palxontologists. The question 
therefore appears to require no further discussion. I would, however, take this 
opportunity of noticing a curious point connected with it, which seems to have 
been strangely overlooked by all who have written upon it except M. Duvernoy. 
It is nevertheless a point which, if properly considered, must long since have 
settled any dispute. ‘ 
In 1854 M. Duvernoy pointed out the palpable fact that, supposing the 
Cortesi skull to have been furnished, as was imagined, with a septum, that 
septum, as shown in the figures where it was supposed to be represented, must 
have been placed precisely where it should not have been had the skull been that 
of R. hemitechus. In that species, as is well known, the septum terminates a few 
inches from the extremity of the nasals. Now this part is entirely wanting in 
the Cortesi cranium, in which the supposed remains of the septum are placed as 
far back as in R. tichorhinus. In fact, they retreat quite out of sight ; and it is 
this circumstance probably that may have led M. Christol for some time to 
regard the skull as that of R. tichorhinus. slaps 
2u2 
