THE MALTESE FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 47 
scribed by Busk', give rather smaller dimensions, but nothing in any way remarkable. 
I have, moreover, bodies of detached yertebre, mostly from Benghisa Gap, somewhat 
larger than the Zebbug specimens, whilst that of Pl. X. fig. 5 is considerably smaller 
than any of the above. 
hibs.—The heads of the ribs (Pl. IX. figs. 6, 6a, & 7) offer several very cogent proofs of 
the small dimensions of one form of the Maltese elephants. ‘The articular epiphyses in 
fig. 6 are completely consolidated. The same parts, with the tubercle, of fig. 7 have 
been injured; but a fragment of the former remains, and shows sufficiently, in common 
with the second rib, that both belonged to adult, if not aged, elephants. The comparison 
between fig. 6 and the same rib of Elephas melitensis of Busk? furnishes the following 
data :— 
(1) Largest diameter of head (fig. 6) 0°8 inch: Zebbug (fig. 8), 1 inch. 
(2) Short diameter of head (fig. 6) 0-7 inch: Zebbug, 0°85 inch. 
(3) Distance between inner border of head and outer surface of the tubercle (fig. 6) 
1:7 inch: Zebbug, 2 inches. 
The two agree in outline, with the exception that the neck of the Zebbug specimen is 
longer. As shown in fig. 6a, there is a deep pit, which is also present in the Zebbug 
and the Asiatic, and mayhap in the African, but not so pronounced. As regards a rib 
of a very aged individual of the Asiatic in the Royal College of Surgeons, this fossa is 
relatively smaller. With reference to other characters, in comparison with the second 
rib in recent species the same narrow anterior margin is common to them; but I think, 
as far as fig. 6 is concerned, that the outer surface of the tubercle is broader than in 
the Asiatic Elephant. With reference to fig. 7, its nearly horizontal neck is cha- 
racteristic of the third rib, to which I have little doubt it belonged. Moreover there 
is every evidence of its claims to be considered not only the bone of an adult, but, 
as far as the description and figure go, I am much inclined to associate it with the 
equally imperfect specimen ascribed by Busk to his E. falconeri*. Both display pre- 
cisely the same characters; and the absence of the pit and rotundity between the 
head and tubercle is only what obtains in other species. The particular characters 
assigned to the Zebbug specimen are precisely what obtain in the above, and, in con- 
junction with the decided horizontal neck, seem to me to place both together. I would 
therefore consider them either the third or fourth ribs; and as far as the dimensions of 
fig. 7 are concerned, all might have belonged to the same individual. Mr. Busk does 
not give the dimensions of the Zebbug specimen; but, judging from the figure, I should 
imagine that it is slightly smaller than fig. 7‘. 
1 Trans. Zool. Soc, vol. vi. pl. 46. figs. 9 & 10. * Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. vi. pl. 45. fig. 8. 
3 Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. vi. pl. 51. fig. 37. 
* The second and third ribs of 2723 n, Royal College of Surgeons (referred to with the atlas) haye no epiphyses, 
but, as far as dimensions go, are about the same as figs. 6 & 7; and its dorsal vertebre are of about the same 
dimensions as those of fig. 9, Pl. XI., only all the epiphyses are easily detached. 
. 
