464 PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY. [Apr. 27, 
points of the hinder horns of each crescent rise into acute eminences, 
shows a mode of usure totally different from that which is observed 
in R. tichorhinus. Moreover the enamel is far too thin and smooth 
for that species, nor does the anterior column exhibit on its inner 
face the distinct posterior costa which exists in the lower molars 
of R. tichorhinus. Jam unable to point out any sufficient character 
by which this particular tooth could be distinguished from that of 
RR. hemiteechus. The size of the tooth is— 
JL(srakec ty 5 15h Aen ee Annie a SmIE Ie PAIL ofr 2-1 inches. 
NAVSCGIE 014 UP ee Re RC ere BLAU LORE ANS 1:15 and 1:2. 
No. 881 (Fig. 4) is so much worn as to be of very little use for the 
purpose of diagnosis. It appears, as stated in the ‘ Catalogue,’ to be 
pm4, That it is not tichorhine is obvious enough from the thinness 
of the enamel. But, except that it is, perhaps, rather more tapering 
in front, I do not see how it could be distinguished from the same 
tooth in F. hemitechus or R. etruscus. 
These teeth, therefore, except as regards R. tichorhinus, are of 
no value for my present purpose. But with respect to the maxillary 
teeth, the following characters may be adduced as distinguishing 
them from those of the tichorine Rhinoceros, and, in some measure, 
from those of any other species. 
1. The thinness and smoothness of the anemadl 
2. The configuration of the dorsal surface, as seen iIn— 
(a) The lowness of the first and fifth coste—that is to say, of 
the anterior and posterior angles. 
(6) The even undulation of the posterior area, as it is termed 
by Mr. W. B. Dawkins, and the total absence of the fourth 
elevation counting from the front, or the fourth costa. 
3. The expanded inner end and the pronounced sinuosity on the 
anterior aspect of the anterior column. 
4, The great size of the anterior vallum. 
5. The form and connexions of the uncus, and the consequent 
absence of the true “ tichorhine pit.” 
From the corresponding tooth of Rhinoceros hemitcechus the pre- 
sent seems to differ :— 
1. In the lowness of the anterior costa, cl, and consequent ab- 
sence of the deep sulcus between it and the second or principal 
costa. 
2. In the comparatively easy undulation of the rest of the dorsal 
surface. 
3. In the thinness of the enamel and, it might be added, of the 
cementum—a character upon which, however, I think Dr. Falconer 
was disposed to lay rather undue weight. 
4, In the form of the uncus—which, instead of being thick and 
rounded towards the point, is slender and attenuated, and instead 
of pointing directly forwards, as in RR. hemitcchus, is ultimately 
directed forwards and outwards *. 
* Dr. Falconer, as every one knows, placed great reliance upon the angle 
formed between the wncus and posterior column in the discrimination of R. 
