THE STJMATBAN ELEPHAlfT, 77 



ing tliese questions in the affirmative than the negative, but they 

 must be determined by ascertaining the facts, in order to know the 

 exact boundaries of the range of E. indicus* 



K, as we have reason to believe is the case, the Elephant of 

 Southern India agrees with that of Bengal, then the phenomenon 

 that the Ceylonese animal belongs to another species, and that species 

 the Sumatran, is certainly very remarkable. The Fauna of Ceylon 

 shows, it is true, in some respects, differences from that of Southern 

 India ; one of the most noticeal^le of which is, that not one of the 

 Monkeys living upon this island is identical with those of India. 

 Nevertheless the Fauna of Ceylon agrees much better with that of 

 India than with that of Sumatra, where not only entirely different 

 species, but even other forms of Monkeys occur {e. g. the Orang- 

 outang, severtil Gibbons, amongst which is the abnormal Hylobcdes 

 syndacti/lus, the Galeopithecus, Sfc.) and wliich island besides pro- 

 duces, to mention some of the larger species, a Rhinoceros, the Indian 

 Tapir, a very different species of Bos and of Moschus, an Antelope, 

 the Argus, Folyphctroti, several very peculiar species of Hornbill, 

 (<?. g. Buccros bicornis, and B. galeatus), and many other species and 

 genera, which are not met with in Ceylon. It would be, however, 

 anticipating the progress of science, when, as now, so small a quantity 

 of incomplete materials are before us, to make comparisons between 

 the Faunas of these countries, and it wovdd be still more precipitate 

 to attempt to draw general conclusions therefrom.f 



If we take into consideration at once the size of the laminse of 



* The works of Naturalists and travellers throw no light upon this subject. 

 Corse (Phil. Trans. 1799, p. 245) it is true, tells us that the Bengalcse distinguish 

 three races of Elephants — Mooknah, Danntelah and Komarea; but the distinctions 

 which he gives of these races, seem to refer exclusively to the lesser or greater size 

 and the form of the tusks. But we know how much the tusks of this animal vary 

 according to the sex and the individual, and that these teeth sometimes, even in old 

 females, acquire a considerable size. 



j- I think the attention of Natitralists ought to be turned also to the Elephants 

 of the different parts of Africa. We meet, among the skulls from this Continent, 

 with some which, as regards the extraordinary shortness of the tusk-jaw-bones, 

 arc proportionately shorter and much broader tlian is generally the case. Such a 

 skull is figured by Cuvier, (Oss. Foss. I. pi. 4, fig. 2), whereas on the same plate, 

 (fig. 10) the usual form of the skull of the African Elephant is represented. That 

 this difference is not sexual I have repeatedly observed : one might therefore sup- 

 pose that the individual, the skull of which has such a remarkably contracted form, 

 belongs to another variety or species. All the South African Elephants, that I have 

 seen, belong to the ordinary form. I do not know the locality of the short skull. 

 It would be veiy desirable to coni]\are the Elephants from different parts of Africa, 

 in order to knoAV with certainty whetlier they are all identical, or show local differ- 

 ences. The latter is not impossible, since most animals from the two chief divisions 

 of Africa differ specifically from one another, or at least show differences in size, 

 &c., as, for example, is the case with tlie Ostrich of Algeria and that of South Africa. 

 In every case it is remarkable, that the area of Asia tenanted by the Elephant is ten 

 times smaller than Africa, and that this area embraces two species, whilst the 

 African Elephant is spread over the whole Continent — that is, over an area ten times 

 as great as that of the two Asiatic species together. 



