12 
FAUNA OF THE INDIAN FLUVIATILE DEPOSITS. 
thickened and protuberant near its centre. The meatus occupies the lower half of 
the area above defined, and is large. 
The hinder edge of this mass of bone would appear to be part of the supra- 
oecipital, possibly of the ex-occipital also, and if so, it proves that the occiput was 
protuberant, not concave as in some species. 
The other bones found imbedded were part of the right frontal bone, the 
right pterygoid and two slim bones which lay between the rami of the mandible, 
and have a resemblance to hyoid bones, but are not sufficiently well preserved to be 
identified with certainty. 
Rh. Reccanensis is distinguished specifically from all the brachydont miocene 
species, and also from Bh. Etruscus, by its strongly marked hypsodont character 
and by the non-persistency of the first premolar tooth, but it is allied to many of 
them by the strong development of the guard in the molar series. 
It is allied to the African forms of Ehinoceros by the rudimentary character 
(or possible absence) of the incisors, but separated by the greatly elongated sym- 
physis of the mandibles and the great development of the guard in the premolars. 
There remain then the three Em’opean pleistocene species — megarMnus, Jiemi- 
tceclms, and tichorhinus — one hypsodont miocene form from Pikermi in Greece, the 
pliocene American form Bh. crassus, Leidy, and the living and fossil Asiatic 
species with which to compare it. 
Mr. Boyd Dawkins, r. n. s., in his very interesting paper on Bh. Etrnscm,* 
when speaking of the division of the Bhinocerotes into two classes by the relative 
heights of the unworn crowns of their teeth, reckons all the known living species 
to the hypsodont division, as also all the Asiatic fossil species. It appears to me, 
however, that three of the more recently established living Asiatic species — Bh. 
Floweri, Gray, Bh. stenocephaUis, Gray, and Bh. {ceratorhinus) niger. Gray — show 
such low crowned teeth that they approach more closely to the brachydont type, 
and that the conclusion that this type had ceased must be modified. 
Taking the different species to be compared seriatim, we find that the Deccan 
species differs from Bh. megarhinus by the narrowness 
of the extended symphysis, which is broad and spatu- 
late in the latter; by the great development of the guard, which is slight in 
megarhinus ; by the greater development of ( ^2 ) the second costa on the outer 
wall; by the different form of the posterior valley, and by the absence of the 
deep notch on the posterior edge of the rami of the mandible immediately below 
the condyle. 
From Bh. hemUceehus Bh. Reccanensis differs by the absence of the thick 
layer of cement found in the molars of the former; 
also by the different character of the molar series, for 
in Bh. hemitcechus the anterior and median colles are very narrow and compressed, 
and the posterior collis very low and small. In Reccanensis, on the contrary, the 
* Quarterly Journal, Geol. Soc., Vol. XXIV, 1868, p. 214. 
Eh. megarhinus. 
Eh. hemitffichus. 
