THE MALTESE FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 53 
together with the elevated prominence for the tuberosity, and the large hollow for 
the tendon. ‘This specimen and the outline of the proximal articular surface contrast 
very favourably with a similar bone described by Busk as that of the adult humerus 
of #. falconeri'. There are differences, however, which seem to separate them from 
Pl. XII. fig. 1. Indeed, in the above the anterior border is far more hollow under the 
head than obtains in Pl. XII. fig. 1; and the size, at all events of my specimen, is cha- 
racteristic of the young of a larger elephant, therefore may probably have belonged to 
the largest form. 
2. The next humerus (Pl. XXI. figs. 9 & 9q@) is interesting in having been found with 
the ulna and fragment of radius (figs. 10 & 10a), besides other bones shown in the Plate 
and referable to the same individual. This humerus and the fragment of the adult bone 
of the smallest forms (Pl. XII. fig. 1) seem to agree as far as their comparison will 
admit; and in general outline fig. 9 is also like the young humerus described and figured 
by Busk ’. 
The following are the characters of figs. 9 & 9a. First, the contour of the posterior 
border shows a considerable concavity under the head, as in the preceding specimen, 
and more so than apparently obtains either in Pl. XII. fig. 1 or in the humerus of 
E. falconeri’. 
There is a well-marked depression on the inner side of the posterior angle. 
The supinator ridge is more oblique and like the African; but it runs up and joins 
the posterior border, as in the Asiatic. 
The inner condyloid ridge is rounded and thick, the latter being 0°7 inch at the 
epiphysis of the inner condyle. The deltoid ridge and the bicipital groove (4, 9a) are 
unfortunately too much decayed to admit of comparison. 
3. The fragment of the scapula Pl. XXI. fig. 8 very possibly belongs to humerus 
fig. 9; the epiphysis is gone, the head, neck, and a small portion of the body being the 
only parts preserved. 
The circumference of its neck is 3 inches. 
4. I now come to point out the interesting fragment of a scapula shown in Pl. IX. 
figs. 5 & 5a. It is in all respects similar to the portion figured and described by Busk‘ as 
doubtfully belonging to #. falconeri. In this uncertainty I fully concur, and cannot, 
after much trouble, find that either has any possible affinities to the proboscidian 
scapula, or, indeed, to any recent fossil mammal with which I have had opportunities of 
comparing them. 
The observations made by Busk in regard to the Zebbug specimen apply verbatim to 
figs. 5 & 5a, and show that, to whatever species they belong, they present a community 
of characters quite peculiar and distinctive. 
1 Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. vi. p. 258, cut 16. 
2 Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. vi. p. 280, pl. 52. fig. 50. * Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. vi. pl. 49. fig. 26. 
‘ Trans. Zool. Soc. yol. yi. p. 254, pl. 47. figs. 14 & 14a. 
