29 Memoir upon living and fossil Elephants, 



comparison. The first glance shows that the fossil ele- 

 phant resembles, in its cranium as well as in its teeth, the 

 Indian species rather than any other. 



Unfortunately the drawing is not correct enough for an 

 exact comparison, and it is not made upon a weil-deter- 

 mined projection. The part of the alveoli, that of the con- 

 dylon for the lower jaw, and the anterior edge of the 

 temporal hollow, and of the orbit, are seen a little obliquely 

 behind, while the occiput and the grinders are in a rigorous 

 profile. 



We see distinctly enough, however, a striking difference 

 in proportion in the extreme length of the alveoli of the 

 tusks. It is treble what it would be in an Indian or African 

 cranium of the same dimensions ; and the triturating sur- 

 face of the grinders prolonged, in place of meeting the 

 alveolary edge, would intersect the tube of the alveolus at 

 one-third of its length. 



This difference is so much the more important as it agrees 

 with the form of the lower jaw, as we see below ; and, as 

 we have already said, it would of necessity produce an- 

 other conformation in the proboscis of the fossil elephant ; 

 for where the sockets of the muscles of the proboscis were 

 the same, i. e, the upper part of tjpe nose and the lower 

 edge of the alveoli of the tusks ; in this case the base of 

 that organ was three times larger in proportion than in our 

 living elephants ; or rather the sockets of the muscles were 

 different, and a fortiori its total structure was different. 



If we could trust entirely to drawings, we should also 

 fjnd> 1st, That the zygomatic arcade is differently figured; 

 2d, That the post-orbitary apophysis of the frontal bone is 

 longer, more pointed, and more crooked; ,3d. That the 

 tubercle of the lacrymal bone is much larger and more salient. 



As to the absolute size of the fossil cranium, compared 

 with our living crania, we may form an idea of it from 

 Plate iv. fig. 9, MO, 11, where I have represented the three 

 crania in front, and upon the same scale, 



We may form a still more correct idea of their size from 

 the following table, in which I have collected the dimen- 

 iions of all th? crs^nia with which I am acquainted. 



TsiblQ 



