EXTRANEOUS FOSSILS. 513 



is no place for their infertion in the lower jaw, (the upper 

 I have not feen) and that fuch tufks would appear to be 

 incompatible with the natural purfuits of fuch a creature — 

 can we hefitate to afcribe them to fome other animal ? 



I fliall confine my ideas to two diftindt fkeletons only : 

 fmce no difcovery has yet occurred of a third tooth, or 

 other bone, to juftify the dividing of the tufks between a 

 fecond and a third defcription of incognita. I am neither 

 prepared to admit nor deny, that defenfes^ fo differently 

 fafhioned as thefe will appear, were worn by one and the 

 fame animal : and yet, the probability is, that neither of 

 them belonged to the Mammoth. The difference between 

 the defenfes is indeed remarkable. One of them, the 

 longer of the two, bears a near refemblance, in fize, form 

 and fubflance, to the tufk of an elephant : the other de- 

 fcribes a greater curve, and is fo flattened or comprefTed on 

 two oppofite fides, in its whole length, as to produce a 

 greater breadth than thicknefs, in the proportion of about 

 two parts and a half to one. The curvature inclines on 

 the edges; that is, the tulk is bent edgewife. Both at- 

 fenjes are good ivory. 



With refpedt to the teeth, all that I have feen of either 

 kind are denies molares. They unqueftionably befpeak the 

 remains of two diftin*^ fpecies of non-defcript animals ; 

 the one carnivorous, or mixed; the other herbivorous, 

 or graminivorous. 



The mafiicating furface of the Mammoth tooth is fet 

 with four or five high double-coned proceifes, ffrongly 

 coated with enamel : whereas that of the other incognitum 

 is flat, nearly fmooth, and ribbed tranfverfely, fomcwhat 

 like the elephant's grinder, but lefs prominently marked. 

 The writer has counted from fifteen to twenty of thcfe 

 tranfverfe lines on a fingle tooth of this fecond incognitum ; 

 while on that of the elephant, they feldom exceed half 

 the number. 



? X The 



