OCR Text |
Show 732 MR. F. C. SELOUS ON THE [J entirely on the shape and length of the horns in different individuals. Now I have carefully examined and measured many specimens of Prehensile-lipped Rhinoceroses, and have never been able to discover that they differed in any way the one from the other, except in the length and shape of the posterior horn ; nor could I ever discover the differences between the two mentioned by Mr. C. J. Andersson and other writers upon the subject. Some specimens had long curly hair upon their ears ; but some of the most marked forms of B. Bicornis had this peculiarity equally strongly marked as others whose horns showed them to belong to the so-called species B. keitloa. Many writers upon the subject state that whereas B. Bicornis eats nothing hut hush, B. keitloa eats both grass and bush indiscriminately. Now, if this were the case, how is it that during eight years, more than three fourths of which I have spent in the wilderness, engaged in a continual search for elephants, and always in countries where Rhinoceroses may still be found in greater or lesser numbers, I have only observed two kinds of dung- the black dung, composed entirely of grass, evacuated by the large Square-mouthed grass-eating Rhinoceros, and the dark red dung (with a greenish tinge when the animal has been feeding upon sprouting shoots), full of little chips of wood, evacuated by the prehensile-lipped species. It appears to me that, if there were a species which fed indiscriminately upon grass and bushes, one would see a third kind of dung, in which sometimes hush and sometimes grass would predominate; but this is most certainly not the case. Again, every Kafir and Masara in the interior will tell you that there are three kinds of Rhinoceroses, namely :-B. simus, which the Matabele call " Umhofo " and the Bechuanas " Chukuru;" B. Bicornis, which the former call " Upeygan " and the latter " Borele;" and, lastly, B. keitloa, which they name respectively "Shangainea" and "Keitloa." But when they are questioned beside a dead Rhinoceros, 1 have found that they all base their distinction between B. bicornis and B. keitloa upon the length of the posterior horn alone. Some, indeed, will say that the two varieties differ in size or in the length of hair upon the ears. But I have proved, by actual measurement and personal observation, that the vaiiations in size and the length of the hair upon the ears have nothing to do with the length of the posterior horn, which is the fundamental point upon which all Dutch and native hunters base the distinction between the two species. Again, when one comes upon a Rhinoceros-spoor in the bush, any bushman or Kafir hunter can say whether it is the spoor of a Square-mouthed Rhinoceros or of a Prehensile-lipped one, simply judging from the size of the footprint. But no Kafir or bushman can tell you, when he sees the smaller spoor of a Prehensile-lipped Rhinoceros, whether it be that of B. bicornis or B. keitloa, nor even when he sees the dung can he tell you; for, as I have said before, there is no difference in this particular. However, when the animal has been shot they will say to which species it belongs. If the second horn is not over seven or eight inches in length, they will be all |