THE MALTESE FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 
=I 
oo 
Table of comparisons between the magnum in the Maltese and recent Elephants. 
| | Second | Third ; 
| Lunare Unciform | Trape- Extreme 
y Length. cases aspect. ae ners tae facet. zoidal | thickness. 
| | 
| inches. | inches. | inches. inches. inches, inches. inches. inches. 
| Sumatran (adult) .......... | 3d 2°38 |2:6x25|2:3x1-7|2:-4x1°7/2°3x1°5 | 2:4 1:0 2-4 
(Brit. Mus.’). | 
| A Series (Pl. XVII. fig. 13) . | 3-4 18 |2°8x1°8| 2-2 1-2) 2-5x1:5 | 2°3x1:0 24 | 
| (Maltese.) | | 
| B Series (Pl. XVII. fig. 14) ..| 2:7 14 |2:3x1-4/1-:7x0-4/1:9x1:3) 1:7 x 1:0) 1-9 x 1-2 2-0 
(Maltese. ) | | 
Besides the narrow lateral dimensions, in which all the Maltese magna seem to differ 
from recent or fossil species, there is a small protuberance on the posterior margin 
(fig. 14, a) of the second metacarpal facet, which is common to all and also the African, 
but not apparently to the Asiatic. But the members of A and B series consort with 
their respective lunaria, inasmuch as the large lunare (Pl. XVIII. fig. 1) has a shallow 
magnal aspect as compared with the deeper concavity on fig. 4, and just precisely we 
find equivalent opposing surfaces in Pl. XVII. figs. 13 & 14. At all events, looked on 
as mature bones, we are justified in accepting them as representatives of a large and a 
small form. 
Uncirorm.—This bone is represented in my collection by five nearly perfect and one 
fragmentary specimen. These are divisible into small and large, and seem to agree 
with the preceding, as far as relative dimensions are concerned. 
A Series.—The largest specimens amount to three, which are about the same size. 
One is represented, Pl. XVII. fig. 12, and might, as far as the dimensions of its 
cuneiform aspect extend, have belonged to the same individual as the largest cunei- 
form (Pl. XVIII. fig. 2). It is about equal also to that of the Sumatran (B. M.) and 
the unciform of the articulated skeletons in the Museums of the Army Hospital at 
Netley and Guy’s, London, all of which show the same dental conditions, and are 
between 6°5 and 7 feet in height. The articular aspects of the fossils show slight 
differences in the degrees of convexity and hollowing out; and the inclined surface for 
the apical portion of the cuneiform is not so abrupt in them as in the Asiatic; neither 
would it appear that the surfaces for the third and fourth metacarpals are quite so 
concave as in the Asiatic. In these respects they are more like the African’. 
1 The magnum (16065 in Brit. Mus.), referable to the Mammoth, from Miss Baker’s collection, made in North- 
amptonshire, is even smaller than the Sumatran ; and although doubtless belonging to a young Elephant, the 
facets are bold and well defined. Had the bone been subjected to calcareous infiltration, it would assuredly 
have been undistinguishable as regards characters and dimensions from the largest Maltese specimen referable 
to adult individuals. 
2 Blainville (vol. iii. p. 42) states that the unciform in the Asiatic has no facet for the third metacarpal, and 
in consequence it differs from the African. As far as 708 h (African) in the British Museum, and many 
Asiatic and Mammoths’ ossa magna, also the Maltese are concerned, this facet is present. 
VoL. 1X.—PART 1. November, 1874. ii 
