56 MR. A. L. ADAMS ON THE OSTEOLOGY OF 
spine is more pronounced in the African; and in 4, fig. 9, it is deeper than in either. 
As to the radial pit (4), the loss of the epiphysis somewhat vitiates the outline; but it 
is decidedly deep and apparently not so open as in the African. 
On comparing the above carefully with the fragment from Zebbug, described by Busk ! 
as portion of the ulna of his 4. melitensis, I find little, if any, discrepancies worth men- 
tioning. ‘The measurements of the specimens agree in a remarkable manner ; I must 
observe, however, that the pit or fossa in front of the inner condyle, so pronounced in the 
ulna of recent species and seemingly indistinct in the specimen of 2. melitensis described 
by Busk, is very deep and prominent in fig. 9. The anterior aspect of the shaft is 
concave, at least as far as the fragment shows, which is to about the commencement of 
the lower third. The external aspect just under the head is more hollowed out than 
the internal; and although the above is not quite an adult condition, it most probably 
belonged to an animal nearly full-grown and of small size, equivalent to the computed 
dimensions of the owner of the humerus (Pl. XII. fig. 1) and the radius and ulna (PI. 
XIII. figs. 2 & 3). 
Young and immature Radius and Ulna. 
The ulna and the fragments of the proximal end of the radius (Pl. XXI. figs. 10, 
10a) were found in situ with the humerus fig. 9 and other bones represented in the 
plate*. The larger radius (fig. 15) was broken during removal, and there is a small 
portion of the centre of the shaft wanting; it is, however, sufficiently preserved for com- 
parison with the young radii figured and described by Busk*. Of course the prominent 
ridges of the old bone are not defined; but the outline of the humeral facet (fig. 15 a) 
resembles that of the old bone (PI. X. fig. 7a). In this young bone the anterior ridge 
rises in the upper third, and there is no remarkable flattening under the head as in the 
African. A transverse section at the middle of the shaft (4) gives the outline shown by 
Busk in the young radius from Zebbug*; and the distal epiphysial junction is similar to 
another®. These discrepancies, however, are questionable specific distinctions, and cannot 
be safely utilized without further data. At all events the above radius, as compared with 
an African foetal bone shown by Busk®, might be considered as representing a young 
elephant with its middle milk-teeth in wear and of a diminutive size as compared with 
other elephants. The comparison moveover between fig. 15 and the fragment a of a 
radius attached to ulna, fig. 10, indicates a good-deal older individual. 
? Trans. Zool. Soc. pl. 48. figs. 24 & 24a. 
> The fragment of skull (PI. I. fig. 18), the fore-foot bones (Pl. XXT. figs. 1 to 7), also scapula (fig. 8), 
humerus and ulna (figs. 9 & 10), the fragment of vertebral arch (fig. 11), the rib (fig. 12), tibia (fig. 13), larger 
tibia (fig. 14), and radius (fig. 15) were all found jammed together under a large stone in Benghisa Gap. Sce 
my Work on Malta, page 189, 
* Trans. Zool. Soc. vi. p. 280, pl. 47. figs. 18, 19. * Thid. p. 281. no. 19. 
* Thid. p. 281. no. 18. * Thid. fig. 40, p. 277. 
