112 MR. A. L. ADAMS ON THE OSTEOLOGY OF 
with an occasional ridge, even in upper teeth’. Here, again, if disposed to lay stress on 
the thick ridges, there would be no difficulty in creating two forms; but enough is 
known of the errors of paleontologists to make me chary in admitting even the two 
fragmentary yet very remarkable specimens” as belonging to species distinct from 
their thinner-plated compeers’. 
As before remarked, all the Maltese fossil elephants present a crown-pattern which 
differs very little individually. In crowns newly invaded there is considerable crimping *; 
but as soon as the digitations are worn out, the section shows a disk expanded in the 
centre, with a decided abrupt angulation and the “fine” or “faint” crimping on the 
cement side of the macherides®. This crimping is always most distinct on thin-plated 
or moderately thick-plated surfaces, and dies away almost altogether on very thick 
enamel*; however, it is seemingly not constant. 
The dentition, therefore, of the Maltese fossil elephants seems to me to confirm the 
presence of two species, the ridge-formula of whose molars runs thus:—The smallest 
species holds, exclusive of talons, in its milk-series 3+-5-+ 8-9, and in the true molars 
8-9-+10+12; the large form gives 3+6-+ 8-9 in the former, and 8-94+10+412-13 in 
the latter. 
The nearest known species to which the above assimilate in the numerical estimate 
of their dental ridges, is the Elephas meridionalis ; and the closest approximation of the 
worn crowns and character of the ridges are to the same in Hlephas antiquus. They 
differ, however, widely from both, and justly deserve separate positions in synoptical 
tables of species. 
3. A Stylo-hyoid of very diminutive size’, as compared with either recent species, 
even in their very youthful states, points towards the presence of the smallest form. 
4. The Vertebral Column displays the elements of what had belonged to two distinct 
forms differing much in dimensions; indeed by taking several dorsal vertebre and their 
ribs, and the atlas and largest cervical vertebre and their ribs*, we have repre- 
sented two mature animals differing in height, as compared with recent species, to the 
extent of individuals varying from 4°5 up to 7 feet. The decided character of the 
atlas ® seems to place the smaller species, as does its lower jaw, for the most part with 
the African Elephant. 
5. The only fragment of a Pelvis shows, as compared with a similar portion in the 
Zebbug collection", a somewhat remarkable internal arching or “ beehive ” construction 
of the acetabulum. Being a mature bone, it represents the smaller form, and in relation 
to the other specimen is somewhat larger. The two differ decidedly in respect of the 
‘ This is the case in Pl. VIII. fig. 1. * Pl. VIII. fig. 7, and No, 78 of Collection. 
* Pl. VIII. fig. 1, or Pl. VII. figs. 1 & 2. * PL II. fig. 9. 
2 IRE AMIS atte Ze * Pl. IX. fig. 1a. 7 Pl. XV. fig. 10. 
* Compare figs. 7 & 8 with fig. 9 of Pl. XI., and ribs, figs. 2 & 3 of Pl. X., with Pl. IX. figs. 6 & 7. 
9 Pl. XIII, fig. 1. 0 Pl. XY. figs. 9 & 9a. 1 Trans. Zool, Soe. vi. pl. 50. fig. 31. 
