230- ME. BUSK OX THE REMAINS OF 



of more than one dwarf species. Further attentive examination and comparison of tlie 

 bones has only served to confirm this impression ; and I hope in the following pages to 

 be able to show that the Zebbug proboscidian remains, strange as it may seem, embrace 

 those of not less than three species, two of which must be regarded as pigmy or dwarf 

 forms (though one probably exceeded the other in size), whilst the larger one equalled 

 in stature the smaller forms of the existing African or Asiatic species. It will 

 doubtless be regarded as a remarkable circumstance that the distinction between the 

 two smaller forms should have escaped the penetrating and long-experienced eye of Dr. 

 Falconer ; but I think this may be readily explained by the consideration that, so far as 

 his notes show, he had not as yet entered upon the critical study of the bones of the 

 skeleton, but had confined himself to that of the teeth alone, parts to which, as is well 

 known, he attached such paramount importance in the study of the Proboscidia. And 

 I have little doubt that, had he lived to resume his investigation of the Maltese fossils, 

 which for the last two years or more had been completely interrupted by the attention 

 he had devoted to the fossil remains from Gibraltar, he would, on turning to the bones 

 of the skeleton, have become aware of the existence of more than one " pigmy" Elephant. 



But under the cu'cumstances, and having convinced myself of the existence of two 

 such forms, 1 have felt some doubt as to the names that should be given to them. Both 

 cannot of course be E. melitensis of Falconer ; and I propose therefore to limit that 

 name to the larger of the two small forms, and to designate the other by the name of 

 one to whom palaeontology, especially as regards fossil proboscidia, is so deeply indebted, 

 and to term it E. falconeri. 



As regards the large form associated with E. melitensis and E. falconeri, there are not 

 in the present collection, as it appears to me, sufficient materials for the drawing of an 

 accurate comparison between it and several other extinct species ; and I shall therefore 

 not venture at present to suggest any name for it, preferring to leave this in suspense 

 until better-marked remains of its teeth and other parts may justify its being either 

 referred to some already described species, or distinguished definiti^'ely from all with 

 which we are at present acquainted. Eeasons will perhaps be apparent, in what 

 follows, for the suggestion that it may be identical with E. antiqnus ; but the evidence as 

 yet in our possession is far too scanty to allow of this being affirmed with any degree of 

 certainty *. 



The collection, I would remark, is made up partly of the bones of adult, and partly 

 of those of young or even, perhaps, foetal animals; and these immature bones, like the 

 mature ones, are plainly divisible into three sets, each of which it is fair to assume 

 belongs to one or other of the adult forms indicated by the mature bones. No diffi- 

 culty, of course, exists in referring the young bones of the large form to their proper 

 place ; but with respect to the other two, owing to their much nearer correspondence in 

 size, the question of allotment is not so easily settled, and I am quite willing to believe 



* vide note, p. 227. 



