74 MR. A. L. ADAMS ON THE OSTEOLOGY OF 
B Series.—1. A smaller-sized unciform, differing also in character, is shown in fig. 9. 
It is of the left foot, and its upper surface is abraded; and a transverse fracture when 
the bone was fresh had displaced the metacarpal surfaces, so that little more than its 
general dimensions can be relied on safely. At a glance it will be seen that it is 
broader relatively than fig. 12. Now, as we have seen that the smaller cuneiforms 
(Pl. XVIII. figs. 7, 8, & 9) show this peculiarity as compared with the largest (figs. 2 
& 5), the above may be regarded as belonging to the same type or form. 
2. Another left unciform (8) is considerably smaller than fig. 9, but displays the 
like broad cuneiformal aspect. It is important to show their differences in comparison 
with each other and recent species; I therefore give the dimensions in the following 
Table :— : 
Table of comparisons between the unciform in the Maltese and recent species. 
f Length Guneifasn Fifth Fourth Third Marnal : 
i nd . |metacarpal| metacarpal | m rpal ena. 8. 
Earners breadth. BUND: ae fee ; ae facet rae 
inches. inches. inches. inches. inches. inches. inches. 
Large (Maltese) ......-.....000% 34% 3:2 | 3-4 x 26 1°5 | 2:2 x 2-2 | 2:3 x 0°7 | 2:6 x 1-2 2:5 
Large (Maltese), Pl. XVII. fig. 12. .| 3-3. x 3-2 | 3:3 x 2:4 | 2-2 x 1:4| 251 x 2:2} 23x 0°7 | 255 x 1-2 2-4 
Tiaroet(Maltese) Mts) ie. cis ons 6 3-4 3-0 BRS Nnr 6 aren 2:0 x 1-1 2-4 
Small (Maltese), Pl. XVII. fig.9 ..|2:5x2-4)2-4x%2-4/1-8x1-0/1-8x1-4/ 1:8x 0-4| 2:2 0:8 2:0 
Small (Maltese) ...........0.00 | 2:1 x2:0/1°8x1:8/ 1:3 x 0:7 | 1-4 11S 540 25 lees 15 
2677, R. C. 8. (Asiatic) ........ 3°4 x 3°3 | 3:0 x 2-4 | 2:2 x 1:4] 2-2 x 2-2 | 2-4 x 0-6 | 2-7 «1:5 2-7 
Sumatran Elephant (B.M.) ...... 3°7 x32 |3°5 x 2-4 | 2-016 | 2-5 x 1-8 | 18x 0°6 | 23x 1:5 2-4 
It will be seen in this Table that the largest Maltese unciform represents an animal 
nearly as large as the Sumatran (B. M.); whilst the smallest would indicate an 
Elephant somewhere, as Dr. Falconer has remarked, about the height of a large 
Javan one-horned Rhinoceros, with characters differing as regards the configuration of 
its cuneiform and unciform from the larger form. 
Portion of a Left Fore foot found in situ. 
Among the very variable materials discovered by me in different localities, one of 
the most heterogeneous assemblages of Elephantine remains are those figured for the 
most part in Pl. XXI. They were discovered in Benghisa Gap, firmly packed in red 
soil, and below blocks of water-worn stones, and lay in a space of not more than 
2 feet either way. Along with the bones shown on Pl. XXI. figs. 1 to 15, were also the 
skull and tusks (PI. I. fig. 18). The suggestive conditions in which the remains were 
found have been discussed at some length in my work'. I shall therefore proceed to 
the description of a portion of a left fore foot found along with the other bones. The 
following specimens raise the question at once, whether or not they are to be con- 
sidered full-grown, immature, or young bones. 
» + «Nile Valley and Malta,’ p. 189. 
