12 



(continues he] there seems to be no certain A'es- 

 tiges of the existence of this animal farther 

 south than the salines last mentioned. It is 

 remarkable, (he adds,) that the tusks and skele- 

 tons have been ascribed to the elephant, while 

 the grinders have been given to the hippopo- 

 tamus or river horse. And yet it will not be 

 said, that the hippopotamus and elephant came 

 always to the same spot, the former to deposit 

 his grinders, and the latter his tusks and skele 

 ton 1 For what became of the parts not depo- 

 sited there ? 



» 

 •' We must agree, then, that these remains 

 belong to each other ; that they are ol' one and 

 the same animal; that this w\as not a hippopo- 

 tamus, because the hippopotamus had no tusks 

 nor such a frame, and because the grinders differ 

 in their size as well as in the number and form 

 of their points." That it was not an elephant 

 he thought ascertained by proofs equally deci- 

 sive. *' 1 wil 1 not avail myself (he says) of the 

 authority of the celebrated anatomist, Mr. J. 

 Hunter, who from an examination of the tusks 

 has declared, they were essentially different 

 form those of the elephant ; because another 

 ctnatomistj D'Aubenton, equally celebrated. 



