62 MR. A. L. ADAMS ON THE OSTEOLOGY OF 
the two just noticed. There is a recent transverse fracture of its shaft, by which about 
an inch has been broken off; however, I ascertained the following admeasurements 
beforehand—entire length 13 inches, girth of middle of shaft 5°6, breadth of lower 
articulating surface 2°8. 
These three tibiz belonged unquestionably to adult elephants; and it will appear 
that the largest (figs. 1 & 2) belonged to an individual somewhat larger than that of 
fig. 3. From the closer proximity of the femoral condyles in the African than in the 
Asiatic and Mammoth, there is consequently a smaller intercondyloid fissure ; we should 
therefore also expect a corresponding convergence of the tibial cups, and that the 
dividing ridge will be narrower. Now all the characters of the African are apparent in 
the fossils just described. Moreover, in comparison with the Asiatic, it would appear 
that the tibia of the African is relatively shorter, at least as far as the single skeleton in 
the British Museum is compared with an Asiatic of about the same relative age. A small 
concavity between the spine and external cup, close to the head, is apparent in certain 
specimens of the Asiatic, but is wanting in the single African and in the fossils. As to the 
distal extremity, excepting a greater obliquity of the fibular facet in the African and the 
fossils than in the Asiatic, there do not seem any marked differences in the outlines 
of the astragaloid surface, further than, perhaps, that the African has it more oval than 
the Asiatic, whereas the surface fig. 2@ has an outline intermediate in form and more 
like that of the Mammoth. 
The spine is rounded, and the anterior angle of the shaft is barely traceable to the 
inner malleolus; consequently the middle and lower third in front are well rounded. 
On the posterior aspect there is a deep concavity below the head; and both outer and 
inner angles are pronounced on each side: the former can be easily followed to the 
outer malleolus, whilst the latter is scarcely so well defined, but still traceable. These 
peculiarities I shall revert to presently in discussing the characters of the young bone: 
they are present in the Asiatic tibia; but, if any thing, the internal is the more defined. 
As compared with the same bone in the following, it would seem that, although much 
less in length, its facets are even larger than those of the Sumatran, B.M. By com- 
parison, I find the tibia of the latter and the admeasurements of Plate XV. figs. 1 & 2 
to stand thus :— 
| 
Antero- Antero- eT 
Breadth posterior | posterior | Girth |  breadt c 
Length.| across | diameter diameter | at mid-/| and antero- Beng 
head. |and breadth | and breadth| shaft. | posterior 4 
lof outer cup.|of inner cup. diameter. 
oe Sere —E—————EE ES 
inches. | inches.| inches. inches. inches. inches. inches. 
Sumatran, BSMy is. /2: samen. tie 21 55 | 20x25 | 30x25 | 7:5 | 32x24)] 2x8 
Maltese (Pl. XV. figs. 1 & 2) ....| 14:2 5:8 | 2:°2x2:5 | 32x25 72 | 33x26 2x1 
Even the youthful specimen (707/, B.M.) with which the fossil is exactly comparable 
