330 ANNUAL OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY. 



don have also been described by Mr. Clift, from the banks of the Irawadi in 

 Birmah, and by D'Orbigney and Humboldt, from South America. 



The sub-generic distinctions of Elephas were also founded on peculiarities 

 in the teeth, the stegodon having crown ridges increasing in each tooth as 

 the numbers two, five, seven; the loxodon having three, six, and seven ; while 

 in Enelephas the increase was much more rapid, as four, eight, twelve, etc., 

 up to twenty -four. The Enelephas primigenius, or fossil elephant of Siberia, 

 was designated as the true mammoth, with rhomboidal shaped crown 

 ridges, placed close together, the enamel surrounding the dentine, thin, and 

 without waviness, crimping, or festooning. The most perfect remains of 

 this elephant are to be seen in the museums of Mannheim and Darmstadt. 

 They are to be found abundantly in the loep of the Rhine and in the drift of 

 northern Germany. In England they are found in the boulder clay of Nor- 

 folk, in the marine crag of Norwich, in the valley of the Thames, and other 

 glacial deposits. The author believes the true mammoth did not extend 

 south of the Alps, as he has never found it in the museums of Italy. 



The teeth of the loxodon have a thick transverse digitation, without any 

 rhomboidal form in the ridge-plates. The enamel surrounding the dentine 

 is thick, and sections of the teeth present an intermediate form between that 

 of the elephant and the mastodon. 



The Loxodon priscus is found abundantly in the Yal d'Arno, in Italy, also 

 in Britain and Auvergne. 



Dr. Falconer glanced at the various localities for remains of Proboscidea 

 in England, and took some objections to the subdivisions which had been 

 introduced into British geology by the terms pliocene, newer pliocene, and 

 post-pliocene. He observed that whatever evidence of distinction and sepa- 

 ration was afforded by the mollusca, the mammalian evidences drawn from 

 these beds failed entirely to support their separation and subdivision. Mam- 

 malian remains, which were found isolated and at considerable distances 

 apart in England, had been met with on the Continent in the same deposit, 

 and all associated on the same spot a fact which went to prove that the 

 corresponding deposits in England belonged to one and the same age. 



The author insisted, also, on the separation of the genus Elephas into the 

 three sub-genera above indicated, and these again into the several species 

 represented in his synopsis. The paper was profusely illustrated with a 

 magnificent series of colored diagrams, representing teeth of all the known 

 forms of proboscidea from all parts of the world, including those with 

 which the author had become acquainted during his residence in India. 



Professor Owen paid an eloquent and well-deserved compliment to the re- 

 markable research and ability which Dr. Falconer had exhibited in this 

 communication. He hailed the paper as a great contribution to the history 

 of the fossil mammalia a branch of natural history which Dr. Falconer 

 had made peculiarly his own. Notwithstanding the clear and able manner 

 in which Dr. Falconer had marshaled his evidence on the subject, he was 

 not prepared to admit all the generic and specific distinctions which Dr. 

 Falconer relied on in subdividing his genus Elephas. The Professor pointed 

 out many changes which age, sex, habits, etc., would effect in the grinding 

 surfaces of the molar teeth, and he thought the evidence in support of sepa- 

 ration on such grounds was to be received with great caution. The paper of 

 Dr. Falconer would clear the way of many difficulties for future observers, 

 and would doubtless lead to a more close observation and accurate determi- 

 nation of the larger mammalian remains. 



