ON BRITISH FOSSIL MAMMALIA. 211 
in’ the greater extent of the grinding surface and the greater number of plates 
entering into the composition of that surface. 
With regard to the first-cited exception, the following is the result of a 
close comparison instituted between it and a corresponding grinder of the 
Indian Elephant. . 
The fossil in question is an inferior molar of the right side of the lower 
jaw. It exhibits the most complete state in which so large a grinder can be 
met with, the anterior division of the crown not being quite worn down to 
the fang, and the hindmost plate being just on the point of coming into 
use. The whole length of the tooth is 13 inches; the total number of lamellar 
divisions of the crown seventeen, of which the summits of fourteen aré 
abraded in a grinding surface of 9 inches’ extent. The greatest breadth of 
this surface is 24 inches. The first three fangs supporting the common 
dentinal base of the anterior lamelle are well developed. The transverse 
ridges of enamel are festooned. Compared with the thin-plated grinders of 
the Mammoth, these differ not only in their more numerous, thinner and 
broader plates, but likewise in the thicker coat of external cement which fills 
the lateral interspaces of the coronal plates, and in having the fangs developed 
from the whole base of the tooth, even from the posterior plate, the summit 
of the mammillary process of which has just begun to be abraded. But from 
the corresponding molar of the Indian Elephant the present tooth of the Mam- 
moth differs in the more equable length of the coronal plates, which in the 
Elephant, by their more progressive elongation, give a triangular figure to the 
side-view of the crown; it differs also in the greater length of the grinding 
surface, which includes two additional plates, although these are not thinner 
and are not characterized by superior breadth as in the ordinary teeth of the 
Mammoth. 
These differences from the teeth of the Indian Elephant, and the interme- 
diate gradations in the fossil molars by which such rare extreme varieties are 
linked to the normal type of the Mammoth’s dentition, justify us in rejecting 
the conclusion that the Hlephas Indicus coexisted with the Mammoth in the 
latitude of England during the antediluvial or anteglacial epoch : and I think 
it probable that such differences as have been pointed out in the molar from 
the Museum of Parkinson, and that of the existing Elephant, might likewise 
have been detected in the large molar, found at the depth of 6 feet, in brick 
loam, at Hove near Brighton, and alluded to by Dr. Mantell as decidedly 
that of the Asiatic Elephant*. One of the molars from the Elephant bed at 
Brighton, now in the possession of Mr. Stone of Garlick Hill, exhibits the nar- 
row-plated variety of the Mammoth’s grinder. The molars of the Mammoth 
generally contain a greater proportion of cement in the intervals of the plates 
than the Indian Elephant’s grinders do. Those in which the plates are more 
numerous have the enamel iess strongly plicated; but in some of the large 
molar teeth of old Mammoths with the thicker plates, I have seen the enamel 
as strongly festooned as in the teeth of the Indian Elephant. 
The bones of the Mammoth that have hitherto been disinterred present no 
yariations from the characteristic extinct type indicative of distinct species ; 
and it might reasonably have been expected that the lower jaw, for example, 
with the broad-plated tooth should offer as recognizable differences from that. 
with the narrow-plated teeth, as this does from the lower jaw of the Indian 
Elephant, if those modifications of the teeth of the Mammoth indicated distinct 
species. The lower jaw, however, of the ancient British Mammoth has the 
same distinctive modification of the symphysis as that of the typical Siberian 
* Fossils of the South Downs, 4to, 1822, p. 283. 
