xii Preface. 



both as preserved in the Museum of Leyden, not only 

 did not lead him to accept the later conclusion of 

 ScHLEGEL and Temminck, but induced him to doubt 

 the correctness of the statements published by the Prince 

 of Canino, both as to the external and the osteological 

 characters of the Indian elephant. As to the former, he 

 declares that the differences between it and the elephant 

 of Ceylon are so trifling, as not to exceed similar pecu- 

 liarities observable between elephants taken in different 

 regions of continental India, where an experienced 

 mahout will tell at a glance, whether a newly captured 

 animal was taken in the Sal forests of the North-Westeni 

 Provinces, in Assam, in Silhet, Chittagong, Tipperah, or 

 Cuttack. The osteological distinctions and the odonto- 

 graphy. Dr. Falconer contends, are insufficient to sustain 

 the alleged separateness of species. He equally discredits 

 the alleged differences regarding the ribs and dorsal 

 vertebrse, and he concludes that, " on a review of the 

 whole case, the evidence in every aspect appears to him 

 to fail in showing that the elephant of Ceylon and 

 Sumatra is of a species distinct from that of continental 

 India." ' He thinks it right, however, to add, that the 

 subject is one which "should be thoroughly investigated," 

 as the hasty assumption that the elephants of Ceylon and 

 Sumatra belong to distinct species has been put forward 



' The Natural Histcry Rcviciv, January 1863, pp. 81, 96. 



