361 



long and pointed. The long bones of the fore extremity are, according 

 to Mr. Peale, much thicker in proportion than those of the hind extre- 

 mity ; and this difference is greater than what exists in the elephant. 

 The humerus, agreeable to the observations of M. Cuvier, is shorter, 

 and the fore-arm longer, in proportion, than they are in the elephant. 

 The humerus also is shorter, in proportion, to the scapula. 



The pelvis is much more depressed, in proportion to its width, than in 

 the elephant : its opening is also much narrower. 



The enormous mass of the os femoris, and particularly its width, which 

 exceeds that of both the existing and the fossil elephant, excites astonish- 

 ment immediately on being seen. It is flatter from the fore part back- 

 wards, at its lower end, in consequence of the groove answering to the 

 rotula being shorter. The tibia, in the opinion of Mr. Peale, is less in 

 proportion, in this animal, than in the elephant. The observations of 

 M. Cuvier do not corroborate this opinion ; but rather prove, that the 

 proportions here were nearly alike in both animals. 



Mr. Peale observes, that the bones of the hind feet are remarkably 

 smaller than those of the fore feet, as is likewise the case in the elephant. 

 The second phalanges of the fore feet, he observes, terminate in surfaces 

 which seem to show that the bones of the third, or ungual phalanx, had 

 more motion than they have in the elephant, and approached nearer to 

 those of the hippopotamus. 



From a careful attention to every circumstance, M. Cuvier conceives 

 that we have a right to conclude, that this great mastodon, or animal of 

 the Ohio, did not surpass the elephant in height, but was a little longer 

 in proportion ; its limbs rather thicker ; and its belly smaller. It seems 

 to have very much resembled the elephant in its tusks, and indeed in 

 the whole of its osteology ; and it also appears to have had a trunk. But 

 notwithstanding its resemblance to the elephant, in so many particulars, 

 the form and structure of the grinders are sufficiently different from those 

 of the elephant, to demand its being placed in a distinct genus. From 

 the later discoveries respecting this animal, he is also inclined to suppose 



VOL. in. 3 A 



