EXTINCT ELEl'IIANTS. 189 



species was obtained not long since by Capt. Spratt in the ossiferous caves of Malta. In size 

 it stood between a large Tapir and the small unicorned Rhinoceros of Java. To show that there 

 is no error in the case, such as mistaking a young one for an old one, he tells us, that the remains 

 he discovered of numerous individuals, which included nearly the entire dentition, from the new- 

 born calf up to the adult animal.* It falls into the section to which the existing x\.frican 

 Elephant belongs. 



Another species, not much larger than the E. Melitexsis (neither of them exceeding five feet 

 in height), and from the same source in Malta, has since been described by Mr. Busk xmder the 

 name of E. Falconeri, in commemoration of the highly honoured and much-lamented naturalist, 

 from whose labours I have drawn so largely. 



I may shortly say that Dr. Falconer divides the Elephants into three sections, according to the 

 number and closeness of the lamellae of the molar teeth. First, the sub-genus Stegodojj, with few 

 and broad lamellae, forming, as already said, the transition between the Elephant and the Mastodon. 

 Second, Loxodox, the type of which is the existing African species ; it has molars half-way between 

 those of the Indian Elephant and Stegodon. And lastly, Euelephas, with narrow and numerous 

 lamellfc, of which the Mammoth and existing Indian species are the tj'pes. 



When and whence did Africa receive its species ? We may assume that it was not before the 

 miocene epoch, as no e%'idence of the existence of any prior to that period has anywhere been found. 

 If at the miocene period, then there must have been some other connexion between Africa and other 

 Continents than what now subsists — for at that time there were Elephants also both in North 

 America and India ; and the idea of three separate centres of creation for an animal is out of the 

 question. 



It follows that a connexion between Africa and some other country, where Pachyderms were, 

 must have subsisted to allow of their appearance there ; and as, for many reasons, a connexion of 

 Africa with India seems more probable than one with any country, the Pachyderms furnish 

 additional confirmation of the hypothesis of a former connexion with it. 



Dr. Falconer's views correspond with this in referring to India as the nursery of the European 

 forms both of African and Indian type. He says, that if the asserted facts be correct they seem 

 clearly to indicate that the older ElejAants of Europe, such as E. mertdioxalis (of the African 

 type) and E. axtiquus (of the Indian type) were not the stocks from which the later species, 

 E. PRiMiGENius and E. Africanus, spring, and that we must look elsewhere for their origin ; 

 and that the nearest affinity, and that a very close one, of the European E. meridionalis is with the 

 miocene E. planifroxs of India ; and of E. prijiigenius with the existing Indian species, f 

 That E. PRiMiGEXius may have sprung from the present or some extinct Indian species seems 

 extremely probable. As to E. meridionalis, we must remember that if it is near to E. plaxifroxs, 

 so is E. Africanus, aU three belonging to the same section, and E. plaxifroxs being the only 

 Indian one with the African type. 



Another problem stUl more difficult of solution is the derivation of the Elephant (E. mirificls 

 Lcidij), in the miocene beds of Nebraska, of the same type (the Tetralophodont), and of even an oldir 

 date than the Sevallk beds. Although we may not have fallen upon any older speciuiens in India 

 than the Nebraska one, still the greater nimiber of species found there suggests that India may 

 have possessed them first. If, then, we assume that the original centre of creation of the Elephant 



* Falconer, o\>. cit. u. 87. + Falconer, op. cit. p. SO. 



