THREE EXTINCT SPECIES OF ELEPHANT. 281 
much more acute, leading to the supposition that at the upper end the bone might have 
presented the acute angle which is exhibited in the African and not in the Indian radius. 
The lower epiphysial surfaces again exhibit different contours, as may be seen in the 
Plate, where however, unfortunately, one of the bones is represented on the anterior, 
and the other on the posterior aspect. I have therefore subjoined the outlines of this 
surface taken in corresponding positions of the bones, so as to show at a glance the not 
inconsiderable difference they present. 
" (29 ) (18) ti 
© Bey Saat 
7 2 
41, Transverse sections of shaft of radius. 42, Outline of distal epiphysial surfaces. 
From what has been said, it cannot be denied that the same distinction exists between 
the very young dwarf radii as I have attempted to point out in the exoccipital bones 
and humerus. And considering the large size, at what would seem not very different 
ages, and the African tendency faintly exhibited in the radius fig. 18, I should be 
inclined to refer that to the young of E. melitensis. ‘That neither of the small radii 
just described is a foetal bone of a larger form of Elephant, is abundantly shown by their 
dense texture and aspect of greater age, as compared with the far larger radius of the 
uterine fcetus of E. africanus, of which an outline woodcut (No. 37) is given in p. 277. 
(2) Hinder Extremity. 
A portion of the shaft of a very young femur of the largest Maltese Elephant has 
been already described and figured; and I have already noticed the almost entire inter- 
epiphysial shaft of £. falconeri. No specimens of that bone of younger age, corre- 
sponding with the very young humeri, radii, &c. above noticed, occur in the collection ; 
but of the tibia numerous specimens, of various ages, and some very young, exist. Of 
these, however, all it will be worth while here to notice more particularly are those 
represented in Pl. XLVII. figs. 15, 16,17, 20, and 21. Of these regard figs. 16 and 17 
as belonging to a different type from that represented in figs. 20 and 21. 
Figs. 16 and 21, each having both epiphysial surfaces almost entire, are pretty nearly 
of the same length, and to all appearance, so far as can be judged from the condition of 
the surface, of about the same age. They admit therefore of tolerably fair comparison. 
In the first place, as the figures will show, the bones differ a good deal in proportionate 
thickness; stated in numbers the differences in the various dimensions are as under :— 
3 Least 
Length. Upper end. | Lower end. eaten eT 
2-5 . 16 
Fig.21....| 24 9x6 ‘7x6 1-4 
