THE MALTESE FOSSIL ELEPHANTS, 27 
4. The lower molar referable to this series is well shown in the fragment No. 81 
(Pl. III. fig. 2). It has, like the others, a well-defined pressure-scar posteriorly. 
5. There is another, posterior portion (No. 818) of evidently the opposite tooth of per- 
haps the same individual. This specimen shows a pronounced posterior pressure-scar 
1-3inch in height by 1°6 inch in breadth. Here also the cement is in excess. Allowing 
for the displacement of the macherides by the longitudinal fracture in fig. 2, the expan- 
sions of disks, angulations, and faint crimping are very evident. The enamel is nearly 
0:2 inch in thickness'; and had it not been for the clear indications of an advancing 
tooth, the two specimens might have been fairly considered to belong to the last of the 
series. Fig. 2 contains four plates in 2°5 inches, which would make the tooth to have 
been from 6°5 to nearly 7 inches in length. 
Summary.—It seems to me evident from the foregoing data that all the molars just 
described cannot fairly claim to be considered other than penultimate true molars. 
That they have no title to the position of antepenultimate true molars is proved, not 
only from the preceding molars, but from their ridge-formula, crown, constituents, and 
fangs. ; 
1. I shall in the first place consider their individual affinities. As regards the dimen- 
sions of the molars in A & B series and their rami, it must be allowed that the contrast 
as regards both is seemingly at variance with any assumed specific relationship. The 
molars (Pl. V. figs. 1a & 5) contrast with that of Pl. XI. figs. 10 and 104, in respect of 
outline and crown-constituents, the ridge-formula and dimensions being equal. Thus the 
crown of the first is long and narrow, whilst that of the latter displays a broad rounded 
front, narrowing posteriorly after the manner of the last true molars (Pl. VII. fig. 2). 
Again, there are decidedly broader bars of cement between the plates in Pl. V. fig. 1 than 
in fig. 10; but they agree as regards the thickness of the latter, and enamel, and the 
pattern of the disks. 
2. The rami differ also. Allowing that Pl. V. figs. 1@& 4 have been much injured, 
whilst Pl. XI. figs. 10 & 10a has lost a portion of its posterior border ; nevertheless the 
discrepancies in the dimensions, as will be seen when I come to consider them, render it 
extremely likely that, if both jaws hold penultimate true molars, the owners belonged to 
forms or species differing much in size, also in the configuration and crown-constituents 
of their molars. 
3. As regards C series, there is a considerable difference in respect of size between its 
members and either of the other two series. With A series there is no affinity what- 
ever; and most assuredly a comparison between the two surfaces in wear, alone, at once 
proclaims them distinct in every respect. Again, as compared with B series, unless the 
latter is allowed to be a small variety or a sexual condition, I see no manner of 
arriving at any other conclusion than that these penultimate teeth represent three 
distinct forms of Elephant; and yet as regards length the members of B & C series 
* The enamel is broader than shown in the figure. 
E2 
