108 MR. A. L. ADAMS ON THE OSTEOLOGY OF 
the Elephants’ bones’. The presence of two forms of Hippotamus—one of rather small 
dimensions (H. pentlandi), and teeth of a dwarf form (H. minutus, Cuvier)’—is shown 
by the finding of bones and teeth in exactly the same deposit in which the Elephants’ 
remains were discovered. Of other animals there were the gigantic Myoaz, besides large 
birds, Chelonians of various dimensions, and a Lacerta, with recent land-shells, several 
of which seem identical with species now living in Malta’®. 
1. Turning to the anatomical characters presented by the collections generally, and 
my own in particular, the following data in connexion with the Cranium of the 
Maltese fossil Elephants are here recorded:—Although we have no evidence in regard 
to the configuration of the calvarium in any of the forms, there are a few suggestive 
points with reference to the lower jaw. From numerous instances, it appears that the 
lower border of the ramus presents the outline of the African Elephant; but the more 
erect diasteme and absence of a prolonged rostrum show characters in common with 
the Asiatic’. The symphysial gutter, wherever observed, seems to have been open and 
shallow; and the dental foramen, at all events in one of the smaller forms, opened just 
under the condyle, as obtains in the Asiatic species and mammoth. One ramus displaying 
a molar, to all appearances the last of the series, has its relative dimensions equivalent to 
those of the young of recent Elephants’, and of an individual nearly 5 feet in height, 
and equal to that estimated by Dr. Falconer and Mr. Busk as the stature of the 
Elephas melitensis. 
The more diminutive ramus*, and its teeth, which I have doubtfully referred to the 
last of the series, might indicate a still smaller form than the above; but the materials 
are imperfect, and the equivalent Zebbug teeth’ point to a larger individual, which 
fully equalled the Elephas melitensis; so that, as far as the smaller forms are con- 
cerned, there is no cogent cranial evidences of more than one species. As regards a 
large form, there is abundant proof; but there are no perfect cranial bones, excepting 
the symphysis described by Busk* and a fragment of the middle of a lower maxilla in 
my collection, both of which clearly show the presence of an Elephant nearly of 
ordinary dimensions, the former proving that it had a truncated chin. 
2. The Dental materials are very various and complicated; and as regards the classi- 
fication I have adopted, it is possible that several of the intermediate molars may permit 
of different positions than I have assigned to them. 
As regards the incisors, the collections indicate a milk-incisor of the size of that of 
the foetal African Elephant, with its enamel shell, and a much smaller but similarly 
constituted tooth, which differs also somewhat in shape from the other; both however, 
for the reason just stated, preserve the character of the African’. 
‘ Paleont. Mem. ii. pp. 301 & 305. * Author’s work on Malta, p. 206. 
* [bidem, p. 307, & Trans. Zool. Soe. vol. vi. p. 307. SURV Lene 
PORT kefhigsoa doulas © Ply LX. dip: 7 Trans. Zool. Soc. vi. pl. 53. figs. 11, 12, 13. 
* Tbid, vi. pl. 44. fig. 1. Se PIP Lephies, lees 
