THE MALTESE FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 75 
When the lunare, unciform, first, second, fourth, and fifth metacarpals shown in 
P]. XX1., are compared with the foot-bones Pl. XVI. fig. 3, Pl. XVIII. fig. 7, Pl. XIX. 
figs. 6, 7, & 9, and Pl. XX. figs. 2, 3, 14, & 16, and in consideration that the epiphyses 
of the metacarpals are consolidated, and that the prominences on the carpal bones are 
bold and well defined, I see no possible conclusion to arrive at than that they represent 
portions of the fore foot of an adult pygmy form of Elephant. Even allowing for the 
preservative influence of calcareous infiltrations in filling up and consolidating solutions 
of continuity and preserving the outline of a cartilaginous surface, there is not only 
the matured aspect of the carpal, but, I repeat, the epiphyses of the metacarpal bones 
are completely solidified. 
The left Zwnare (P1. XXI. fig. 1) might, as regards characters, be considered that of 
the young of specimen 8, or even of the still smaller lunare shown in Pl. XVIII. fig. 4. 
Here there is the same large sloping ulnar facet, the excavated border for the scaphoid, 
the deep concavities for the radius and magnum, and the knob at the apex of the 
bone which characterize the above as compared with that of the largest form 
(Pl. XVIII. fig. 1). Strange to say, the last is from Mnaidra, and the three others 
were obtained from Benghisa, so fruitful of remains of the small form. The following 
are the dimensions of fig. 1—length 1-8 inch, breadth 1:7, thickness 0-9, radial surface 
15 by 1-1, magnal surface 1:5 by 1:5, ulnar 0-7 by 0°6, cuneiform 1:2. The scaphoidal 
is abraded. The dorsal surface, as in Pl. XVIII. fig. 4, is more hollow than in the 
other two larger bones; but these may be, as well as several other characters, only 
mere individual differences. 
Unciform.—There are two specimens precisely alike, and which undoubtedly belonged 
to the same individual. The right is considerably eroded by decay; but the left (Pl. 
XXI. fig. 2) is perfect. In outline, and the characters pointed out on the upper sur- 
faces of Pl. XVII. figs. 9 & 12, it seems to resemble the latter more than the other. 
The following are its dimensions as compared with them—maximum length 1-9 inch, 
breadth 1:7, cuneiform aspect 1:8 by 1:3, fifth metacarpal facet 0°8 by 0:6, fourth 
metacarpal facet 1:2 by 1-1, third metacarpal 1:1 by 0°3, magnal 1:4 by 0°5, thick- 
ness 1:4. 
First Metacarpal.—The difficulties in distinguishing certain of the long bones of the 
fore and hind feet from each other, more especially among the diversified and often im- 
perfect materials in the collection, are here shown. The characteristic bone (PI. V. fig. 4) 
might have as likely been a first metatarsal of the larger form as a first metacarpal of 
the smaller, but for its diminutive compeer (Pl. XXI. figs. 3 & 3a), which was found 
close to the lunare and unciform (figs. 1 & 2), and the following metacarpal bones, all 
of which belong unquestionably to the same left foot. The characters I shall describe 
as diagnostic of Pl. V. fig. 4, are here repeated. Moreover the epiphyses of fig. 3 are 
consolidated; and the outline and facets are so pronounced, that there is no getting 
over the belief that it isa matured bone. The knob on the lower aspect of the proximal 
L2 
