90 MR. A. L. ADAMS ON THE OSTEOLOGY OF 
whatever their values may be worth, inasmuch as I find in the large assortment of foot- 
bones in my collection that several admit of being classed with the African and many 
with the Asiatic Elephant. 
Moreover there are difficulties to be encountered in deciding equivalent metacarpals 
and metatarsals as well as phalangeals of fore and hind feet of the recent species. What 
must this be when we are determining those of several fossil forms of divers dimensions, 
such as the objects now under consideration, many of which are imperfect? Consider- 
ing, therefore, the diversified and numerous materials in my collections, I think the 
safest and best way will be to describe the same toe of either foot in succession. 
My comparisons of an adult African with numerous examples of the fore and hind 
feet of the Asiatic show that the long bones of the latter are relatively more slender and 
symmetrical in form than in the former; indeed, so pronounced is this, that I cannot 
subscribe to the opposite view entertained by Cuvier, who says that the first, second, and 
fifth metacarpals are relatively greater in the Indian, and that the first metatarsal is 
smaller and more pointed in the African, and its second metatarsal much more slender 
in proportion’. At least, as far as the African (708 H) compares with the Chuny and 
other Asiatic adult Elephants of the corresponding stage of growth, these bones seem to 
me relatively larger; but much may be owing to whether or not the individual had led 
a wild or a domesticated life. 
First Metacarpal, first Metatarsal, and their phalanges. 
1. These bones are apparently shorter in the African than in the Asiatic; and there is 
less difference in length between the first metacarpal and first metatarsal in the latter 
than between the same bones in the African, the first metatarsal being small as com- 
pared with the equivalent bone of the fore foot. 
2. In both recent species the trapezial facet of the first metacarpal is oblong, and the 
cuneiform-facet of the first metatarsal circular. 
3. The upper surface of the digital aspects of the first metacarpal and first meta- 
tarsal in the African is hollowed out, and the under surface of the same articulation is 
flat; whereas in the Indian the former is almost convex and the latter concave. 
4. The lower aspect of the first metacarpal and metatarsal is sharp in the Asiatic, and 
flat in the African. A general remark in connexion with adult recent, as compared 
with the fossil, is, that in all skeletons and specimens of the former I have examined 
containing the second ¢rwe molar in wear, the epiphyses of the toe-bones were detach- 
able, whereas in all I shall describe they are completely consolidated. In 708 / (African) 
and the Sumatran, British Museum, and Chuny, Royal College of Surgeons, they are 
not united. 
A Type—1. The largest first metacarpal, with possibly its digit, is shown in Plate 
XIX. fig. 2 & a & fig. 5. Both display the characters of the African, and, as regards 
* Ossemens Fossiles, tom. i. p. 571. 
