256 MR. BUSK ON THE REMAINS OF 



and we possess no other well-marked or recognizable portions of the humerus of that 

 species, no means exist of instituting a direct comparison between the humerus of the 

 two forms ; but the present affords very abundant means of comparison with those of 

 other species. 



With regard to the differences between the humerus of the Indian and African Ele- 

 phant but little information is to be found in osteological works. All that Cuvier 

 remarks on the subject is, that in the African Elephant the bone is of slenderer propor- 

 tions, that the deltoid crest descends lower, that the supinator or external condyloid 

 ridge is less salient, and that the bicipital groove is wider. 



M. de Blainville, on the other hand, as in the case of the femur, states that 

 the African humerus is stouter and shorter, and the condyloid ridge more salient. 

 These two writers concur, however, in describing the deltoid crest as descending lower, 

 and the bicipital groove as being wider. 



For the purpose of comparison of the fossil bones, 1 have contrasted the humerus of 

 the African Elephant in the British Museum with those of the same length belonging 

 to the Indian species to which I have had access — with the following results : — 



As regards differences in the proportions, expressed numerically, it would seem (a) that 

 the antero-posterior diameter of the head is about the same, (b) that the transverse di- 

 ameter of the head in the Indian is as about 102 to 92 in the African, (c) that the antero- 

 posterior diameter of the tuberosity, as well as that of the head and tuberosity together, 

 are also nearly equal, (d) that the least transverse diameter of the shaft is about the same, 

 but (e) that in the African the antero-posterior diameter at the same part is considerably 

 less, or as 60 to 49, whilst (/) the circumference at the same part of the shaft is in the Indian 

 as 16 to 13 in the African, (y) that the transverse width of the condyles, being 84 in the 

 Indian, is 78 in the African, and (h) that the antero-posterior diameter of the inner condyle 

 is 63 in the Indian against 56 in the African, and of the outer as 56 to 48, and (?) that the 

 proportionate antero-posterior diameter of the inner to the outer condyle is, in the 

 Indian as 100 to 88, and in the African as 100 to 85, whilst (j) the antero-posterior 

 diameter of the middle of the trochlea between the condyles is the same in both. In 

 either species the length of the supinator ridge is the same, and equal to about one- 

 third of the entire length of the bone. It may be said therefore that the head and 

 tuberosity together are rather more compressed in the African, and that the shaft is, as 

 stated by Cuvier, more slender in proportion to its length, and that there is, as in the 

 African femur, a greater difference in size or antero-posterior diameter in the condyles 

 in the African than in the Indian species. 



With respect to the extent to which the deltoid crest descends, I cannot perceive any 

 material difference ; nor do I find that there is any marked difference one way or an- 

 other in the salience of the condyloid ridge. Other differences remain to be pointed 

 out ; amongst these is the much lower position of the nutrient foramen, which (as has 

 been said before with regard to the femur) is placed much lower in the African than in 



