292 MR. BUSK ON THE REMAINS OF 
supported upon the large front fang, has been ground down, and removed by advanced 
wear: the remaining portion is complete back to the hind talon. The fragment 
presents all the characters of the residuary part of a last true molar, more especially in 
the very significant circumstance that the last ridges become gradually. less and less 
vertical, and diverge in a fan-shaped fashion until the hindmost become nearly hori- 
zontal. This portion of the tooth is completely enveloped in well-preserved cement, 
and there is not the slightest indication of a disk of pressure caused by a hinder tooth 
pushing it forwards. his is the typical form which the last true molar (m. 3) com- 
monly assumes in the existing Indian Elephant and in fossil species of the same sub- 
genus Euelephas. It is irreconcilable with that of a last milk-molar, or of either of the 
intermediate true molars, as it would necessarily imply the absence of any other 
0-44, and those of the first true molar 0'-54 in thickness,—in Z, antiquus 0"-52 and 0'-6, in EL. primigentus 
0-33 and 0!-43, and in a single instance of E. meridionalis 0!-56 and 0"-68,—showing that, as a rule, the plates 
of the first molar are considerably thicker than they are in the last milk-molar. I have no direct measurement 
of the relative thickness of the plates in these teeth of #. africanus, but should estimate the difference as much 
greater even than in any of the species above mentioned, or as about 0!-65 and 0-85. In both these particulars, 
therefore, of the length of the tooth and the thickness of the plates, the tooth under discussion, were it the 
m-m. 4 of the same species as No. 9, would haye proportions widely different from those which that tooth 
possesses in all other known species of Elephant. 
In the same way, if we assume with Dr. Falconer that the tooth represents an upper m-m., 4 corresponding 
with such a m-m. 4 as fig. 5, we are met with similar objections. For upon comparing the relative dimensions 
of the upper and lower m-m. 4 in other species of Elephant, the latter will, I believe, in all, or at any rate in 
most cases, be found to be the longer and generally the narrower, though the difference in the latter respect is 
neyer anything like as great as it is between the subject of this note and the tooth shown in fig. 5, the one being 
1-1, the other only 0-7, in width. The former, again, is 2!’"9 long and the latter 2-2, showing an equally 
great difference, but in a direction exactly opposite to what it should be did the teeth stand to each other in the 
relation of upper and lower. But as the tooth fig. 5 is clearly a m-m. 4, it follows that the other cannot be 
an m-m. 4, 4. 
Of course course, if the tooth fig. 9 be regarded as m. 2 2, the above arguments against the smaller one being m-m. 4, 
are very much strengthened. 
The second question to be discussed is whether, supposing fig. 9 to represent an m-m. m-m. 2, the tooth figured in 
this note represents the m. 1 of the same species, or of one of the same size. This point I point I think may be briefly 
decided by a reference to the comparative dimensions of m. 1 and m., 2 in other species of Elephant. 
In E. indicus the average length of these teeth may be stated as about 6-8 and 8'-8, in EZ. africanus as 6!-4 
and 7-3, in EB. antiquus as 6'-7 and 8'-3, in E. primigenius as about 5!3 and 8'"2, and in &. meridionalis as 
6!-5 and 8!-8,—showing that in round numbers the second molar, as regards length, stands in relation to the 
first pretty nearly as 63 to 83. 
But the tooth I am describing and that shown im fig. 9 are of nearly the same length; so that here again, 
unless we assume the existence of entirely different proportions between the length of the teeth in the dwarf 
Elephant and that of those of all other species, we are compelled to the conclusion that the teeth in question both 
occupy the same place in the series—that is, are both either the m. 1, or m. 2 2; but which, it is not very easy to 
say ; and on the supposition that they are so, the very great difference between them in the height of the crown 
is very remarkable. 
