« PreviousContinue »
morons 1 ft. (or even a trifle more),—in sorn)/nous 9 in. Breadth of bony interspace between the tnsks of the lower jaw,—in INDICU8 1% to 1% in.,—-in SONDAICUS 2- to 1 in. These measurements are taken from exceedingly fine examples of both species.
Sir T. Stamford Raifies asserts, of Ru. SUMATRANUS, that “ the female has a. larger and heavier head than the male, but is similar in other respects.” This decidedly does not apply to the twohorned species inhabiting Burma; nor even to Bell’s figures of Sumatran individuals! Rafiies further remarks that—“ Dr. Bell’s description and representation of this animal are extremely correct. The skin of the Sumatran Rhinoceros,” he adds, “is much softer and more flexible than that of the Indian one, and is not, like it, corrugated into plates of mail. It has, however, some doublings or folds, particularly about the neck, shoulders, and haunches, rather more distinct and defined than in Dr. Bell’s drawing. The natives assert that a. third horn is sometimes met with; and in one of the young specimens procured, an indication of the kind was observed.” (Lin. T1‘. XIII, 268.) In Mr. C. J. Andersson’s ‘ Lake Ngami’ (2nd edit., p. 263), the same is remarked of one or more of the ordinarily two-horned Rhinoceroses of Africa. This traveller writes—“ I have met persons who told me that they had killed Rhinoceroses with three horns ; but in all such cases (and they have been but few) the third or hindmost horn is so small as to be scarcely perceptible.” This seems a not unlikely character to have been developed more frequently ‘in the great fossil RH. TICHORHINUS of N. Europe and Asia.
Bell further mentions, of Rn. SUMATRANUS, tbat—“ The whole skin of the animal is rough, and covered very thinly with short black hair.” The latter is conspicuously represented in F. Cuvier’s portrait of the species in the Planclzes a'cs Mammi/'éres, less so in Bell’s figure in the Phil. Ti'an.s'., and in that by Dr. Salomon Muller; and it is well shewn about the jowl and base of the lower jaw of our stuffed skin of the head of an adult female. In Dr. S. Miiller’s figure of what he styles an adult male (but the horns of which are quite small, as in the adult Martaban example before noticed*‘), the shoulder-plait is rather more strongly developed, especially towards
* Can these animals, under any circumstances, occasionally shed and renew their horns, which consist only of a mass of agglutinated hair? There is certainly no physiologlcal objection to the possibility of their doing so.
the elbow, than in the figures published by Bell and F. Cuvier,——F. Cuvier-’s figure representing a young male, and that by Bell a mature female, while the skull represented by Bell is that of a male with finer horns than appear to have been hitherto represented elsewhere. The figure in the ‘ N atura1ist’s Library’ (Elephants, &c., pl. XI,) is an exaggerated and very incorrect copy of that by F. Cuvier, with the skin-folds greatly too much developed.
Sir T. St. Raflies further remarks, of the Asiatic two-horned Rhinoceros (in Sumatra), that—-‘‘ They are not bold, and one of the largest size has been seen to run away from a single Wild Dog.’v We hear, however, of a “ fire-eating Rhinoceros” in Burma, from its habit of attacking the night-fires of travellers, and scattering the burning embers and doing other mischief, being attracted by unusual noises instead of fleeing from them as most wild animals do. Prof. Oldham’s camp was attacked in this way, in Tavoy province; and the animal being mortally wounded by a 2 oz.-ball, its skull was recovered three days afterwards, and proved to be that of SUMATRAZEUS. The same propensity is ascribed to the ordinary black Rhinoceros of S. Africa (RH. AJFBICANUS). Thus Dr. Mason cites—“This animal appears to be excited by the glow of a fire, towards which it rushes with fury, overcoming every obstacle. It has been known to rush with such rapidity upon a. military party lodged among the bush covering the banks of tl1e'Great Fish river, that, before the men could be aroused, it had severely injured two of them, tossed about and broken several guns, and completely scattered the burning wood.” I am not aware that the same ferocity has been remarked of either of the mailed one-horned species.
In Java, the R11. soivnlucus is reputed to be rather a mild animal; though I could cite a rumour of one attacking a sailor’s watering party. (Zoologist, p. 7328.) According to Professor Reinhardt, this animal is (in J aiva) “ found everywhere in the most elevated regions, and ascending, with an astonishing swiftness, even to the highest tops of the mountains.” (Edinb. Phil. Mag. XIII, 34.) Dr. Horsfield also notices that “it prefers ‘high situations, but is not limited to a particular region or climate, its range extending from the level of the ocean to the summits of mountains of considerable elevation.*** Its retreats are discovered by deeply excavated pas
sages, which it forms along the declivities of mountains and hills.
I found these occasionally of great depth and extent.” In Bengal, I believe that the identical species is found in the Sundarbzins, and also (formerly, at least,) in the Rajmahal hills at all elevations; but it has hitherto been universally mistaken for RH. INDICUS, a species which may inhabit the same localities,—only that now remains to be ascertained, as also if RH. SONDAICUS extends its range to the region tenanted by the other. All evidence at present attainable points to the opposite conclusion. ,
So long ago as in 1838, the late Dr. Helfer remarked that—“ The Tenasserim provinces seem to be a convenient place for this genus; for I dare to pronounce almost positively,” he then wrote, “ that the three known Asiatic species occur within their range. The R11. INmcns being found in the northern part of these provinces, in that high range bordering on Zimmay called the Elephant-tail mountain ; the RH. SONDAICUS, on the contrary, occupies the southernmost parts ; while the two-horned Rn. BUMATBANUS is to be found throughout the extent of the territories from the 17° to the 10° of latitude. In character the RH. BONDAIGUS seems to be the mildest, and can be easily domesticated; the powerful Indian Rhinoceros is the shyest; and the double-horned is the wildest.” (J. A. 8'. VII, 861.) Mason (in 1850) remarked that “ the common single-horned Rhinoceros [sonlmrcus] is very abundant. The double-horned is not uncommon in the southern provinces :” and then he alludes to the alleged < fire-eater’ of the Burmans, supposing that to be SONDAICUS, as distingished from “ the common single-horned” kind, which he thought was INDICUS. Very decidedly, I consider that the alleged existence of the great sub-Himalayan INDICUS in Bengal, the Indo-Chinese region, and Malayan peninsula, remains to be proved; the broad and narrow types of skull of SONDAICUS having, I suspect, been mistaken for morons and SONDAICUS respectively. That the real species denoted by these names was so early discriminated, I opine is mainly due to the accident of sonnarons having been first obtained in Java, which induced the suspicion of its being probably different from the only then recognised continental species, inhabiting Upper India; likewise to the accident of the Paris museum containing aparticularly fine skull of the true INDICUS, which (as before remarked) is probably that of the individual figured in the Menagérie du Museum d’Hist. Nat.
The museum of the Calcutta Medical College contains, as we have seen, three noble skulls of INDICUS, besides that with the entire skeleton of an old female (both the broad and narrow types of skull being represented) ; but it has neither SONDAICUS nor SUMATRANUS. The Sooiety’s museum still wants the first species ; but is tolerably well supplied with the two others. Sir T. H. Maddock, in 1842 (J. A. S. XI, 4548), presented us with two skulls of SONDAICUS (of the broad and the narrow types), and also with two of SUMATRANUS (one wanting the lower jaw),—-all from the Tenasserim provinces: and the skulls of an old male and of an adult female of SUMATRANUS, the skin of the head of the latter, its axis vertebra, the long bones of the limbs (minus the right fore-limb and scapula), and the two scapula; and long bones of the four limbs of the male, were presented to the Society by E. O’Re_illy, Esq. (then of Amherst) in 18%’? (J. A. S. XVI, 310, 502). In the As. Res. Vol. XIII, App. XVIII, “part of the head of a two-horned Rhinoceros” is recorded to have been presented; and again, p. XIX, “ the horn of a Rhinoceros from Sumétra.” The latter was not in the museum when I took charge of it in 184d ;but the former I think that I recognise in a pair of united nasal bones (certainly belonging to this species), and in this case the specimen would probably be from a. Sumatran individual.* Of SONDAICUS we have also a fine series of skulls (one of them from Java, presented by the Batavian Society in 1844), the almost complete skeleton of a very nearly full-grown female. (being considerably smaller than that of the female INDIOUS in the Medical College museum), and the small stuffed specimen to which I have before referred: the limb-bones of the skeleton being considerably more robust than those of UMIATRANUS. For this skeleton, (and those of Elephant and Came1,) we are indebted to a former Néwab Nazirn of Bengal ; and it is, doubtless, either from Rajmahal or the Sundarbans : the skull being of the broad type, though less strongly marked than some others, in fact intermediate, though scarcely quite mid-way intermediate. The following notice by Sir T. Stamford Raflles may be advantageously reproduced here.
“ The one-horned Rhinoceros of India is not known to the natives
of this part of Sumatra; and the single horns, which are occasionally procured, appear to be merely the longer horns of the two-horned species separated from the smaller one. There is, however, another animal in the forests of Sumatra never yet noticed, which, in size and character, nearly resembles the Rhinoceros, and which is said to bear a single horn. This animal is distinguished by having a. narrow whitish belt encircling the body, and is known to the natives of the interior by the name of Tennu. It has been seen at several places ; and the descriptions given of it by people, quite unconnected with each other, coincide so nearly, that no doubt can be entertained of the existence of such an animal. It is said to resemble in some particulars the Buflalo, and in others the Badalc or Rhinoceros. A specimen has not yet been procured ; but I have several persons on the look out, and have little doubt of soon being able to forward a more
' Add also the facial bones with small horns which I brought from Murtaban.
accurate description from actual examination. “It should be remarked,” continues Raffles, “that the native
name, Tennu, has, until lately, been understood to belong to the Tapir. It is so applied at Malacca, and by some of the people at Bencoolen. In the interior, however, Where the animals are best known, the white-banded Rhinoceros is called Tennu, and the Tapir Gindol, and by some Bahi Alu. It is not impossible, that, as both animals have white bands, the names may have been confounded by people little in the habit of seeing either, and deriving their information solely from report. I In a country like Sumatra, where the inhabitants, in a great measure shut out from general communication, are divided into an infinity of tribes, speaking different dialects, a perfect consistency or uniformity of nomenclature cannot be expected, and it is not always easy to reconcile the synonymy.” Tr. XIII, 269.)
It naturally occurs to the mind, that, if the Tennu really exists, it would long ere this have been discovered, in all probability, in the neighbouring Malayan peninsula: but how little is even now known of the great animals inhabiting that peninsula! The late Dr. Cantor, when he wrote his Catalogue of the Vertebrated Animals of the Malayan peninsula, was unaware of the existence there of B08 sonnarcus in addition to B. caunus, only includes a two-horned Rhinoceros on the testimony of the Malays, and whether the ELErnns SUMATRANUS occurs on the mainland of Asia (like the Tapir and the two insular species of Rhinoceros, the Bos SONDAICUS and others,) is still undetermined. It is possible cnough, though doubt