EHINOCEROS DECCANENSIS. 
o 
With regard to living species I have followed the latest enumeration given by 
Dr. J. E. Grey in the “Annals and Magazine of Natural History”^ in continuation 
of the list published in his catalogue of the Pachydermata in the British Museum. 
Unfortunately some species included among those are founded on external 
characters only, e. g., Bh. Oswellii and Bh. CrossU, and with such, of course, com- 
parisons were impossible. 
My specimen was compared with all known published descriptions and with the 
fossil and recent specimens in the British Museum, the Boyal College of Surgeons, 
London, the Jardin des Plantes, Paris, the Museum of the K. K. Geol. Beichs 
Anstalt, Vienna, the Imperial Museum, Calcutta, the Madras Museum, and last, 
but not least, the Geological Museum, Calcutta. And here I would express my 
sincere thanks to Mr. Henry Woodward, v. r. s., to Mr. Davis of the Palaeonto- 
logical Department of the British Museum, and to Professor A. Gaudryof the Jardin 
des Plantes, for the true courtesy with which they gave me every assistance in 
their power in carrying out such comparison with the specimens in their custody. 
The head of Bh. Beccanensis indicates a smaller and slighter animal than 
Bh. Indicus, but one larger in all probability than any of the other living Asiatic 
species. 
The head is that of a young adult animal whose permanent dentition is re- 
Dentai formula presented by the formula H ? C|, P. M. Hi, M. 
The teeth, which were not furnished with a cement 
layer, are not much worn down by use; indeed, the last molars in each jaw had 
only just begun to show signs of wear. The animal belonged very markedly to 
the hypsodont section of the family. 
The incisors are wanting in the mandible, and from the rather broken con- 
dition of the incisive border of the symphysial portion, it is difdcult to be quite 
positive whether alveoli had ever been developed there or not. The incisors, if 
developed there, were extremely small and quite rudimentary. 
The premaxillary bones are unfortunately wanting; hence the presence or 
absence of incisors in the upper jaw cannot be determined, but the probability is 
that they were extremely small or wanting. Two fragments of bone were found 
loose, which present some resemblance to the anterior extremities of pre-maxillary 
bones in other species, and, if they should really be such, their appearance certainly 
disfavors the idea that the animal possessed upper incisors. 
Professor Owen has pointed out that the development of the horns of the 
Rhinocerotes is in the inverse proportion to the magnitude of the incisors. If this 
law held gOod in Bh. JDeccanensis, it must have had a very large horn or pair of 
horns. t Unfortunately, however, the nasal bones were not found ; so, this point 
remains for the present undecided. 
* Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 4th Series, Vol. XI, p. 356. 
t Owen’s Comparative Anatomy of Vertehi’ata, Vol. Ill, p. 356. 
