OCR Text |
Show 1026 DR. J. E. GRAY ON THE RHINOCEROTIDAE. [Dec. 12, I have not seen the skull of this species, nor do I know any specimen existing in museums, unless the one described by Camper still exists. " The length of the head of R. keitloa, in proportion to the depth, is very different from that of R. bicornis. Upper lip distinctly produced ; inside of the thigh black. The horns are of equal length and development in the young animal."-A. Smith. This species is peculiar for the length of the hinder horn; but Schinz describes the front horn as very long, and the hinder short, conical. Peter Camper, in 'Act. Petrop.' (1777, part 2, p. 193), described the head of a two-horned Rhinoceros which he received from the Cape of Good Hope. He figures the head and the skull in great detail. The upper lip has a distinct central process, or prehensile lobe; and the horns are both compressed and sharp-edged before and behind, the front one is the longest and regularly curved, the hinder well developed and elongate. The end of the nose of the head and skull is rounded and not square, and the nasal bones are not truncate, as in the skulls of R. simus in the British Museum. I believe Camper's to be the first description of R. keitloa oi Dr. A. Smith. Schinz gave the name of R. camperi to a species which he says is R. bicornis of authors, and which is figured by A. Smith under that name in the ' Illustrations of South Africa ;' but he describes the front horn as very long and recurved, and the hinder horn as small, triquetrous, compressed; while the hinder horn of R. bicornis is always conical, subcylindrical, with a circular base. Schinz's R. camperi appears to be a compilation from the figures of Sir A. Smith's R. bicornis and Camper's description and figure of the head of R. keitloa. P. Camper, in giving the figures of this species, properly made the drawings like a diagram, without attending to the rules of perspective, so that the compass can be applied to any part. He gives a particular name to these figures, and calls them Catograph. In Camper's figure the length from the back edge of the seventh molar to the front edge of the small intermaxillary is considerably greater than the distance behind the hinder edge of the last molar to the occipital condyle. In De Blainville's figure of R. simus, and in the two specimens in the British Museum, the length from the hinder edge of the seventh molar to the front edge of the small intermaxillary is rather less, or about the length behind the hinder edge of the seventh molar to the outer part of the occipital condyle. The Keitloa is recognized as a species distinct from R. bicornis by the tribes of natives; they have a different name for the two species. If Cuvier had had a series of the skulls of R. bicornis, or had seen a preserved specimen of the two animals, be would never have thought that the skull figured by Camper was the adult of R. bicornis. The skulls of the different species alter very little in form during the growth of the animal, when they have passed the very youngest, nearly fcetal, state. |