39 



We have said that there are at least three mastodons rep- 

 resented in this find. Our reasons are easily told. 



First. — The occurrence of homologous bones proves 

 the presence of at least two mastodons. For example we 

 have — 



Three tusks and a tip of a fourth. 



(One tusk was so far gone as to crumble before pre- 

 servatives could be applied, and is therfore wanting 

 in the collection.) 



One entire left humerus and part of another. 



Two right tibiie. 



One lower jaw aud a portion of another. 



Second. — Examination of the mandibular tusks shows 

 that they must have belonged to three animals. 



The complete lower jaw, including its two tusks, repre- 

 sents one very old male specimen.-'- 



On examining the fragment of lower jaw, we find that 

 the cavity for the left lower tusk must have been much 

 smaller than the right one. The most perfect of the two 

 loose mandibular tusks fits nicely into the remnant of the 

 right cavity. Although we can not be absolutely certain 

 that either of these tusks belonged to this identical jaw, yet 

 we have shown that not more than one of them cotild have 

 belonged to it under any circumstances. 



Thus we have still left another mandibular tusk to 

 assign to a third proboscidian. 



Third. — From the teeth, we find that there are three, 

 and possibly four, mastodons represented. 



If we sttidy the free teeth, we shall find {a) that two are 

 worn in such a way as to prove them to be the tipper teeth 

 of the animal to which the complete lower jaw belonged. 

 (b) The two largest and least worn teeth belong to the 

 fragmentary jaw. The size of the teeth, the wear, and, 

 above all, the location when found, satisfactorily prove this 

 statement, {c) The two fragments are from the pre-molars 

 of a very young mastodon, as the teeth show no sign of wear 



■■■ See plate. 



