| OCR Text |
Show 144 , ON THE CHARACTERS OF RHINOCEROS SIMTJS. [Mar. 2, enabled me to make a comparison between Rhinoceros bicornis and Rhinoceros simus, which I have never before had an opportunity of doing. Indeed, as is well known, such specimens of the latter species, with the exception of a single immature example in the British Museum, are almost unknown in Europe. On looking at the two heads now before us side by side, the points by which this part of the two animals may be distinguished present themselves very appreciably. In the first place, as is already well known, the " White " or " Square-nosed " Rhinoceros, as it is much better called, is distinguished by its short upper lip, which is quite apparent in the example now before us. In R. bicornis the central portion of the upper lip is far extended, and forms a quasi-prehensile organ. This is sufficiently manifest in the specimen now on the table, but is still better seen in the living example of the same animal in the Society's Gardens. A second point in which the heads of the two African Rhinoceroses differ materially is in the size and shape of the ears. In R. bicornis (Plate X V I . fig. 2) the ear-conch is much rounded at its extremity and edged by a fringe of short black hairs which spring from the margin. In R. simus (Plate XVI. fig. 1) the ear-conch is apparently much more elongated and sharply pointed at its upper extremity \ where the hairs which clothe its margin constitute a slight tuft. While the upper portion of the ear-conch is much more expanded in R. simus than in R. bicornis, in the lower portion the two margins are united together for a much greater extent, and form a closed cylinder, which in the present specimen rises about 3 inches above the base. The total length of the ears in the present specimens is, in R. simus, 12*5 inches and in R. bicornis about 9*5 inches. A third point in which the two species appear to differ is in the shape of the nostrils, which, judging from the present specimens, are, in R. simus, elongated in a direction parallel with the mouth, while in R. bicornis they are more nearly of a circular shape. Again the eye in R. simus appears to be placed further back in the head than in R. bicornis. A regards the well-known differences in the skulls of these two Rhinoceroses, which are obvious enough on a glance at the specimens on the table, I will say nothing on the present occasion, but simply refer to De Blainville's figures (Osteographie, Rhinoceros, pi. iii. and iv.), and to Prof. Flower's remarks on this subject in the 'Proceedings' of this Society for 1876 (p. 452). 1 This peculiar feature is well shown in the figures of R. simus given by Smith (111. S. Afr. Zool. Mamra. t. xix.), and Harris (Portraits, &c. pi. 19). |
