1862.] A Memoir on the living Asiatic Species of Rhinoceros. 157 
are (or were) the Rh. leptokhlsus of the later European tertia- 
ries, apparently also the Rn. Schleiermachebi (v. megarhinus ), and 
I cannot help thinking even the immense Eh. ticiiobhinus, — all of 
these exemplifying an Eurasian or Europaso-asiatic (and more or 
less hair-elad) type of two-horned Rhinoceros, as distinguished from 
the existing two-horned African type, which is represented by as 
many as four living species (falling under two groups, with prehensile 
and non-prehensile upper lip, and browsing or grazing habits accord¬ 
ingly,—those of the latter habit being more gregarious and also more 
gentle in disposition*). Figs. 8 and 4 of plate IY, represent the front 
view of the skulls fs. 2 and 3 of pi. Ill; but I have reason to suspect 
that the united nasal bones of f. 4 of plate IV, are rarely so narrow 
in the female of Rii. semateAjSTUS, as in the example represented. 
With the exceptions of fs. 1 and 4 of pi. IY, all the representa¬ 
tions given were photographed together in one focus, so that the 
relative sizes are quite accurately rendered. The scale of all is 1| in. 
to 1 ft.f 
So far as I can learn, the Eh. sumateantjs is the only existing 
species of Rhinoceros which presents secondary sexual distinctions; 
inasmuch as the horns of the male are very considerably more deve- 
three Bhinoceroses down to the southward, but was unsuccessful. One, the 
monarch of the forest, I tracked up a mountain some 4,000 ft. high, which took 
me six hours to get up ; and close on the top, he rose up before me within six 
feet, a magnificent beast. He was eidew r ays towards me, and I distinctly saw his 
two horns, which were at least ten to twelve inches longer than those I have got. 
He would have been a great prize ; but, unfortunately, I had not my rifle in my 
hand at the time, and the man who was carrying it fell down on his face in a 
fright, and rolled down the hill. The beast was certainly a rather startling 
apparition ; his advent being so very sudden, as if he had come up through a 
trap-door in a pantomime, giving a tremendous roar, something between that of 
ail Elephant and that of a wild Boar.” 
* For figures of the heads of these animals, in a collated group, vide Mr. 
C. J. Andersson’s ‘Lake jS T gami,’ 2nd edit., p. 986. The affinity of the extinct 
European species with Eh. sumatranus has been long ago remarked by Cuvier 
and Owen. The Siwalik Eh. platyehinus of Cautley and Falconer is just 
Eh. sumatranus enormously magnified ; and the Eh. siyalensis of the same 
naturalists comes exceedingly close to the existing indicus (with the narrow 
form of skull, and their Eh. PAijEiNDicus to the same with broad form of skull). 
Can it be the identical species which has lived down to the present time ? The 
discrepancy is, at least, not greater than subsists between Bison peisgus and the 
modern Zubr , which are considered by Owen to be one and the same. 
Since writing the above, I have read Prof. Owen’s memoir ‘ On a National 
Museum of Natural History.’ Even he, evidently, had no idea of the two insu¬ 
lar species of Ehinoceros extending their range to the mainland, as appears from 
liis casual notice of them. 
f For these and other photographs of objects of Natural History, I have to 
thank my esteemed friend T. S. Isaac, Esq., C. E. 
