 Reference Base  Notes on the type specimen of Rhinoceros lasiotis Sclater... |
|
Thomas, O., 1901. Notes on the type specimen of Rhinoceros lasiotis Sclater, with remarks on the generic position of the living species of rhinoceros. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1901 June 4: 154-158
|
|
|
|
| |
| Location: |
World |
| Subject: |
Taxonomy |
| Species: |
Sumatran Rhino |
 |
|
(Sub)species of Sumatran Rhino. On August 31st, 1900, there died in the Gardens of the Society the famous female Rhinoceros from Chittagong, and the characters of which it is only fitting should be here noted, now that its skull and headskin have passed into the possession of the National Museum. The first reference to this specimen is an account of its external characters given by the late Dr. Anderson, the Superintendent of the Calcutta Museum (P.Z.S. 1872, p. 129). Then followed (t.c. p. 185) an announcement of its purchase for ?1250. In March of the same year (1.c. p. 493, pl. xxiii.) our Secretary gave the history of the specimen's capture, and a figure of it, and in a footnote assigned to it the name of R. lasiotis, given after comparison with a Malaccan example of R. sumatrensis which arrived in August. In November (t, c. p. 790) he gave his full reasons for separating the two forms, accompanied by figures of the heads, and of the Malaccan specimen.
Dr. Gray, however (Ann.Mag.N.H. (4) x. p. 207, 1872), with a total disregard to the geography of the question, considered that it was the Chittagong animal that was the true R. sumatrensis, assigning the Malaccan animal first to his R. crossii (P. Z. S. 1854, p.250) and afterwards (Ann. Mag. N. H. (4) xi. p. 357, 1873) giving it the special name of Ceratorhinus niger (nec Rhinoceros niger, Schinz, Syn.Mamm. ii, p.335, 1845).
In the latter paper Gray, perceiving (as I think rightly) that the skulls figured in Blyth's valuable paper of 1863, quoted below, belonged to different forms, gave the name of Ceratorhinus blythii to some of them, but so worded his remarks that it is not easy to make out to which he applied the name. This point is, however, of but little importance, as the term blythii is antedated by names covering all the forms figured.
Other references bearing on the subject are as follows:
Sclater, Ann.Mag. N.H. (4) x. p. 298 (1872).
Blyth, t.c., p.399 ; also J. A. S. B. xxxi. p. 151 (1863), and xliv. Burmese Appx. p.51 (1875).
Flower, P.Z.S.1876, p. 443, and 1878, p. 634.
For comparison I have had before me 13 skulls belonging to the group of R. sumatrensis, four of them having been kindly lent me by Surgeons collection (Nos. 2142, 2143, 2145, and 2146 of the 1884 Catalogue), and the others being those belonging to the British Museum.
In the first place, with regard to the external characters of colour and hair development, a comparison of the head-skin of R. lasiotis with the two specimens in the Museum of 'Ceratorhinus niger' leads me to the conclusion that the differences described were mainly due to age. For it will be remembered that the 'C. niger' (that is to say the specimen determined by Sclater as sumatrensis and used by him for his comparison with lasiotis) was very old, while the type of lasiotis was then quite young. In its old age, the latter has become practically quite like the former, for the tufts on the ears do not exceed l ? -2 inches in length, and are in no way noticeably different from those of the Malaccan specimen. In fact, Dr. Anderson's supposition (P.Z.S. 1872, p. 130) that the tufts on the ears might wear off with age, seems to me entirely confirmed by the evidence, so far as can be judged from a mena- gerie specimen. Nor is there in colour any difference worthy of note, that described by Selater having apparently disappeared with advancing age.
Turning to the skull, we find that in size the type of R. lasiotis surpasses all the other thirteen skulls examined, but differs in no other tangible character, so that the question of the validity of R.lasiotis as a special form seems to depend purely on the matter of size. The following are its measurements, given in inches for comparison with those published by Sir W. Flower in 1878: Length from occipital crest to end of nasals, in straight line 23 5/8. With tape over curve of nasals 24.5 ; greatest zygomatic breadth 12 7/8 ; interorbital breadth 8. [Teeth and palate too much diseased for measurement..]
From these measurements it appears that R. lasiotis exceeds considerably the equally aged skull of 'C. niger' (Flower's No. 2) from Malacca and is only approached by No. 5 (R.C.S. No. 2142), said to be from Sumatra.
Allowing for its much more youthful condition, the latter skull is practically of the same size as the Chittagong one, and therefore, if it, really came from Sumatra, disposes at once of the claim of R. lasiotis to distinction on the ground of size.
But I am not satisfied about the question of locality, for Sir Stamford Raffles, as a collector of Natural History objects, and a great Governor and Administrator, might easily have had brought to him a skull from any part of the East Indies; so that, merely on the evidence of this skull only, I do not like to dismiss the claims of R. lasiotis to distinction, since such dismissal would carry with it the assumption, otherwise unsupported, that the skulls of the Sumatran Rhinoceros vary in size to so considerable an extent.
The Pegu skull (Theobald, B.M. No. 68.4.15.1, Flower's No. 4) is intermediate in size, as in locality ; while all the Malaccan and other Sumatran skulls are comparatively small, as are those from Borneo.
For the time being therefore, on the assumption that the Raffles skull referred to was not really from Sumatra, I should consider R. lasiotis as a tenable northern subspecies of R. sumatrensis, characterized mainly by its greater size. As noted by Flower in the case of the Pegu skull, and borne out by that from Chittawong, the post-glenoid processes appear to be longer in proportion than in the Malaccan and Sumatran Rhinoceros.
|
|
|
File available
details
Original text on this topic: