78 MR. A. L. ADAMS ON THE OSTEOLOGY OF 
1. The Scaphoid (Pl. XVII. fig. 10, and woodcut fig. 4) represent two distinct forms, 
differing in characters and size; and whilst the larger differs in a few points from the 
other and recent species, it agrees in general outline with the African, whilst the other, 
representing a considerably smaller foot, displays the configuration and several points 
distinctive of the Asiatic and Mammoth. 
2. The Lunare furnishes a greater diversity as to dimensions. The larger (Pl. XVIII. 
fig. 1) might have belonged to an individual nearly, if not altogether, 7 feet in height, 
whilst specimen B is in fair keeping with the smaller scaphoid, and fig. 4 belonged 
to a much smaller individual, and Pl. XXI. fig. 1 to a perfect pygmy. Again, whilst 
the largest (fig. 1) shows characters of the African, specimen B and fig. 4 show those 
of the Asiatic and Mammoth, which is seemingly the case with the pygmy lunare 
(Pl. XX. fig. 1). 
3. The Cuneiform seems to follow the same rules, although with less variability in 
character. Thus the largest (figs. 2 & 5), seemingly large, and the small individuals of 
one form show a decided Asiatic character, the larger consorting well with the lunare 
(fig. 1); whilst the smaller cuneiforms (figs. 9 & 8), with their relatively broader upper 
and lower surfaces, assimilate to the African type, and agree in regard to some with 
lunare figs. 4 & 9, which might have belonged to the same individual, having been 
found together. The pygmy bone (fig. 7), indeed, like that of an adult, shows the 
African characters. 
4. The Pisiform repeats the characters of a large and smaller form; and, as far as 
any marked characters extend, both seem to approach the African species. 
5. The Trapezoid evidently belonged to the smaller form. 
6. The Magnum agrees in being relatively narrower in all the Maltese than in recent 
species, and shows varieties as regards dimensions, there being large, intermediate, and 
pygmy forms. 
7. The Unciform shows large, small, and pygmy forms, evidently differing in breadth 
of the upper aspect, as shown by Pl. XVII. figs. 9 & 12, the former being relatively 
broader. There is, besides, the pygmy unciform shown in Pl. XXI. fig. 2, which is 
like Pl. XVII. fig. 12. 
Allowing for individual differences in regard to age and sex, or even allowing race- 
characters, I think in the foregoing data in connexion with the carpus, there are good 
evidences of three, at all events of two, distinct forms of Elephants. The largest may 
have attained the height of about 7 feet, whilst the smallest bones indicate an Elephant 
apparently not much over 3 feet in height. Allowing, therefore, for variability to the 
fullest extent permissible with what is known of other species, the extremes here shown 
clearly point at least to two species. As regards these distinctions, it seems to me, as 
far as the carpus is concerned, that very little can be deduced from characters peculiar to 
either; indeed this may be said more or less of the two recent species; and although I 
have noted what appear to be discrepancies in the contour and configuration of facets, 
