42 MR. A. L, ADAMS ON THE OSTEOLOGY OF 
Length of crown surface in wear 3°2 inches. 
Length of the symphysial gutter 2:2 inches. 
The injuries unfortunately have materially destroyed many important characters of 
this instructive jaw; however, the following are apparent. In the outline of the lower 
border, with reference to the ascending ramus and prolonged fore part, there is a 
decided resemblance to the jaws, figs. 3 & 4 of the same Plate, and, consequently to 
E. antiquus and the African Elephant. The diasteme not being preserved, we can only 
surmise from the fragment ¢, in front of fig. 1, that, like the Asiatic, E. antiquus, and - 
fig. 2, it was nearly vertical. The symphysial canal is shallow; and the chin is trun- 
cated, without a trace of a beak or rostrum of any size, just as we have seen obtains 
in all the preceding. The coronoid apophysis rises perpendicularly, with slight beetling 
over of its crest; and the dental foramen opens just under the neck, which is also a 
general character of the Asiatic species. 
In Mr. Busk’s description of the characters of the jaw of his Elephas melitensis, lie 
points out a shallow sulcus’ on the narrow posterior border of the ascending ramus behind 
the dentalforamen. ‘This character is well seen in the African skull, 2845 Royal College 
of Surgeons, forming a sharp border along the margin of the ascending ramus, and is 
also very apparent at 0, fig. 1, forming a pronounced hollow on the posterior margin. 
Unfortunately none of the other jaws I have referred to the small form of Elephant, 
excepting Pl. V. fig. 14, have the portions of their ascending rami preserved, so as to 
confirm the character; but the fact of its presence in a ramus from Zebbug and Ben- 
ghisa Gap would seem to place beyond a doubt that it is a regular condition, at all 
events in the smallest of the Maltese Elephants. With reference, therefore, to the 
comparative characters of the above jaw, there is apparently a strange commingling of 
the characters of the Elephas antiquus and the two recent species, which is further 
illustrated by the bones to be described, 
As regards relative dimensions—in length, thickness, depth along the alveolar border, 
and height of ascending ramus, the above and a lower jaw of the Asiatic Elephant, No. 
2667 in the Royal College of Surgeons, come very near each other. The latter contains 
the last milk-molar in nearly full wear, with a fragment of the preceding still in use, 
which, according to the ordinary specimens, would indicate an individual not over 5 feet 
in height, if quite as much, and of the dimensions of the Hlephas melitensis of Falconer 
and Busk’. 
7, The very interesting but, unfortunately, imperfect lower ramus No. 36 (Pl. IX. 
fig. 1), the molar of which I have doubtfully referred to the last of the dental series of 
' Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. vi. p. 236. 
* As regards Dr. Falconer’s estimate of the height of the pygmy fossil Elephant of Malta, he says “it stood 
between a large tapir and the small unicorn rhinoceros of Java” (Paleont. Mem. vol. ii. p. 299). Mr. Busk 
computes the height of his intermediate-sized dwarf Elephant at about 55 inches (Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. vi. 
Table y. opp. p. 306). 
