THE SUMATRAN ELEPU.VXT. 73 



wliich lie afterwards piiblislied,* calling the new species by the name 

 Elephas sumatramis. 



Since that period, several other examples of the Elephant h'ving in 

 Sumatra have been brought to the Netherlands, so that I have had 

 the opportunity of examining them. Amongst these were seven skele- 

 tons, of which throe are still in the Royal Museum, several skulls, a 

 young specimen of about three feet high also now in the Museum, and 

 a living animal about six feet high now in the Zoological Grardeus, at 

 Amsterdam. All these specimens exhibited alike the characters, in 

 which they differed from such examples of the so-called Indian Ele- 

 phant, as I have examined. 



I say the so-called Indian Elephant, because it has not yet been 

 settled to which species we should apply this name. The name is 

 generally given to that species of Elephant which has been brought 

 from Continental India, and particularly, as it appears, from Bengal 

 to Europe. This practice we have followed, but we must never- 

 theless guard ourselves from believing that this was exactly the 

 species which Cuvier described under the name JEleplias indicus. 

 Cuvier assigns to his E. indicus twenty dorsal vertebrje, and conse- 

 quently a like number of pairs of ribs. This would lead us to 

 believe that Cuvier's determination was made upon a skeleton of the 

 species which lives in Sumatra, and not upon one of the Bengalese 

 species, which has only nineteen dorsal vertebrae and a like number 

 of pairs of ribs.f 



The under jaw figured by Cuvier, pi. 5, fig. 3, seems, judging from 

 the width of the laminre of the teeth, to belong also to the Suma- 

 tran species. 



The figure, pi. 1, fig. 1, is on the other hand apparently taken 

 ■from a skeleton of the Bengalese Elephant, since it has only nineteen 

 dorsal vertebrae and as many pairs of ribs, and this is perhaps also 

 the case with the figure of the skull, pi. 4, fig. 1, and that of the 

 under jaw, pi. 5, fig. 2. 



The supposition that both the other skeletons, examined by 

 Cmaer, belonged to the second Asiatic sort is fully established by 

 what he says, pp. 60, 67. 



He says here, that he has examined three skeletons of the Indian 



* Coup cl'oeil, II. p. 91. 



f It is very curious that Cuvier seems to have quite overlooked the differences 

 in the uumher of dorsal vertebra; and ribs, not only in both the Asiatic but also in 

 the African Elephant, for otherwise he could hardly have avoided alluding to tliem. 

 The chapter of his Osseniensfossiles (I. p. 12), in which he speaks of the skeleton 

 of the Elephant, has the heading " Description gcncrale de I'osteologie de I'Ele- 

 phant, priucipalement d'apres I'Elephant des Indes,"' and it seems from the parti- 

 culars here mentioned, that his principal object was the comparison of the skulls of 

 the African and Indian Elephants; on the other hand that he confined himself to 

 the consideration of the skeleton of Elephas sumatranus of Ceylon, while his figm'e 

 of the skeleton represents that of the Bengalese Elephant. Again, (p. 241) he says, 

 V Elephant (thus speaking generally), a uiie vertebre dorsale c* une paire des coU'sa 

 plus, i. c. than the Mastodon, which, according to him, has only nineteen. 



