THE MALTESE FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 57 
The young ulne of thé collection (Pl. XXI. figs. 10, 16, & 17) furnish a few important 
differences individually, and also in relation to the above and the Zebbug specimens. 
I think there is every liklihood that the humerus and forearm-bones (figs. 9 & 10) 
belonged to the same individual. The olecranon-ridge, like that of the much older bone 
(Pl. X. fig. 9), is remarkably sharp, like the Asiatic, whereas the same in figs. 16 & 17 is 
blunt and rounded as in the African; and, considering relative dimensions, they seem to 
point to specific characters. With reference to the ulna fig. 10, which, with the exception 
of its distal epiphysis and the usual morsel on the top of the olecranon, is entire, com- 
pared with the uterine ulna of the African Elephant’ just mentioned it is half an inch 
shorter. With reference to the humeral aspect (fig. 10 @) it will be observed :—1st, that 
the curve for the head of the radius is not quite so shallow as in the African; 2nd, that 
in proportion the outer facet is much smaller than in either of the recent species 
and Mammoth, but more like that of Pl. X. fig. 9a and the same part in the Z. meli- 
tensis of Busk*. Altogether, with the exception of the anterior hollow for the shaft of 
the radius, so pronounced in fig. 9, the two are much alike. 
With reference to all these young ulne, including the Zebbug bones referred by Busk 
to E. melitensis and E. falconeri, there are several important comparisons to be drawn, 
which appear to me to point towards the presence of at least two different forms. 
1. The posterior angle of Pl. X. fig. 9 and Pl. XXI. fig. 10 is sharp, whereas it is 
rounded in figs. 16 & 17. 
2. The anterior aspect of the shaft in Pl. X. fig. 9 is hollowed out down the middle, 
which is not the case in any of the others excepting Pl. XXI. fig. 16. 
3. The radial pit is very deep in Pl. X. fig. 9, and comparatively shallow in all 
the others. 
4. Just under the pit from which the radial sulcus proceeds in the matured bone, 
we find the same part concave at ¢ in fig. 16 and flat in figs. 10 and 17. 
5. The external humeral facet is not remarkably small in Pl. X. fig. 9a; but it is 
relatively small in Pl. XXTI. fig. 10 a, and perhaps in figs. 16 and17. In none, however, 
is it so much aborted as shown by Busk to be the case in his L. falconeri’. 
6. But fig. 16 seems to differ from all in the radial sulcus (¢) running more obliquely 
down the front of the shaft, whilst its distal epiphysis (16 @) indicates a much larger 
articular surface than that of the foetal African Elephant just referred to. Again fig. 17 
is a still larger bone than either. 
In conclusion, it is just possible that figs. 16 and 17 may belong to the large, and fig. 10 
to the small form; at all events, as compared with each other and much older bones, 
they apparently add to the proofs of the existence of two species of Maltese fossil 
Elephants, which is further shown by the older small and large radii and ulne, which, 
‘ Trans. Zool. Soc. vi. p. 275. no. 36. Its length is 4-1 inches and breadth of head in front 1-2 inch, the 
antero-posterior length of its internal side being 1:5 inch. 
? Ibid. vi. p. 245, 3 Thid. pl. 49. fig. 28 a. 
VOL. IX.—PART I. November, 1874. I 
