THE MALTESE FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 97 
the size of the owner of the digit shown in fig. 8, the saddle-backed proximal facet and 
the contraction of the middle of the shaft being like the Asiatic; while the less oval proxi- 
mal articular surface is like the African, as shown by the same comparison in the Sumatran, 
where this facet is 1-6 inch by 1-2 to a total length of 2, the same in the fossil being 
1-5 inch by 1 to 1-7, Here, again, the articular surfaces are relatively larger. The 
general characters, however, of this digit both in the fore and hind foot are seemingly 
more in keeping with the Asiatic than the African Elephant, provided that the specimen 
of the latter in the British Museum is typical with respect to the aspects of these bones. 
Summary.—Allowing a broad margin for individual differences in dimensions in the 
Maltese elephants, I think it must be apparent that the owners of the foot-bones just 
described could not well have belonged to the same species; for even allowing A and B 
series to represent large and small individuals, neither can be permitted to claim the 
members of C series, which differed in size as much from A series as did the Hippopotamus 
major and H. pentlandi from the existent H. liberiensis and extinct H. minutus’. 
Fourth Metacarpal, fourth Metatarsal, and their phalanges. 
The unciform-facet seems to be generally convex in young and adolescent stages of 
the fourth metacarpal, and becomes almost flat in the aged. ‘This is observable not 
only in the recent species, but seems to be the case also in the Mammoth and the fourth 
metacarpal referable to E. antiguus. The fourth metatarsal seems to be relatively 
larger in the African ; its tarsal articulating surface is more triangular, with more even 
sides, whilst the cuboidal facet is less concave than in the Asiatic. The distal articu- 
lating surfaces and contours of the shafts do not vary much. The Sumatran or insular 
variety would appear generally to differ from the continental, and also the African, in 
having all its articular surfaces more hollowed out and prominently defined. No bones 
in my collection differ more in dimensions than those referable to the fourth fore and 
hind toes. 
I shall divide them into what I may call types, in the order of their size and characters. 
A Type.—1. The largest, an imperfect left metacarpal, has its distal extremity much 
abraded, with the greater part wanting, but preserves the following :—entire length 
4-4 inches (about), some abrasion at distal extremity; breadth (midshaft) 1-8, height of 
proximal end 2, unciform-facet 2 by 1:8, facet for third 1:8 by -6, facet for fifth 1:3 by ‘5. 
The unciform-facet is slightly convex. 
2. A rather smaller but more perféct specimen of the right side, in relative proportions 
equivalent to the third metacarpal (Pl. XIX. fig. 10), is shown in no. 1, woodcut fig. 8. 
Its dimensions are as follows—length 4 inches, breadth (middle of shaft) 1:8, depth of 
ditto 1:2, anterior articular surface 2 by 2 inches, posterior articular surface (unciform) 
1 This diminutive Riverhorse seems to haye been contemporary in Malta with the HY. pentlandi and the fossil 
Elephants. See ‘ Pal. Mem.’ vol. ii. p. 307, and my work on Malta, p. 214. ‘Thus there were pygmy and large 
Elephants and Hippopotami on the area at the same time. 
VOL. IxX.—PaRT I. November, 1874. 0 
