THESE EXTINCT SPECIES OF ELEPHANT. 261 



very closely with that of E. melitensis, except in one very important particular, which 

 alone, as it seems to me, would be amply sufficient to indicate a specific distinction 

 between the two forms, even had we no other bones for comparison. Had we been 

 in jjossession of only a single specimen of the ulna of E. falconer?, its remarkable 

 character in the respect alluded to might well have been deemed perhaps an accidental 

 or individual deviation ; but when we are furnished with two well-marked instances in 

 bones belonging to animals of different ages, and also find that the deviation from the 

 ordinary elephantine type is connected with a special characteristic of the humerus 

 referred to the same species, it is impossible not to regard the character in question as 

 normal, and therefore distinctive. 



One of the great peculiarities amongst the many others of the elephantine ulna, as is 

 well-known, is the mode in which its articulation with the radius, more especially at the 

 upper end, is effected, the comparatively diminutive head of that bone being, as it 

 were, embraced between two arms or lobes of the head of the ulna, whose articular 

 surface, as remarked by Blainville, thence acquires a trefoil form, the two lateral 

 folioles or facets corresponding with the respective condyles of the humerus; whilst 

 the central one ascends on the front of the olecranon and fits on the middle part of the 

 humeral trochlea. The two lateral facets will therefore naturally differ somewhat in 

 their relative dimensions, according to the size of the corresponding condyle. We 

 consequently find that in the African uhia the outer facet is, as compared with the 

 inner, of somewhat smaller size than in the Indian ; and it has already been pointed 

 out that iu the ulna of E. inelitensis the disparity is still greater in the same direction. 

 In E. falconeri it is carried to the extreme, and it may almost be said that the outer 

 foliole of the trefoil is wholly aborted, as may be seen in the figure (fig. 28 a). It 

 is true that a small splinter has been broken off the external angle in front, just below 

 the articulation, and also that the extreme anterior angle of the facet itself is abraded ; 

 but it does not appear that either the fracture or abrasion encroaches much, if at all, 

 upon the actual articular surface itself. At any rate in E. falconeri the outer facet is 

 reduced to a minimum ; and it is interesting to observe with relation to this diminution 

 that the outer humeral condyle, also, as compared with the inner, is smaller in that 

 species than in any other with which it was compared. This abortion of the outer 

 facet, and the attenuation of the corresponding part of the bone upon which it would 

 be supported, give the ulna of E. falconeri so peculiar a character as, even when 

 compared with that of E. melitensis, at once to strike the attention and to distinguish 

 it from the corresponding bone in any other known species or form of Elephant, either 

 recent or fossil *. But it is nevertheless interesting to institute some comparison between 

 it and that of the Indian and African species in other particulars. Unfortunately, 

 owing to the want of any other part of the bone except the upper extremity, and 

 especially to the absence of the lower articular surface, which seems to afford excellent 



* The subjoined figures will convey an idea of the difference in form pf the upper articular surface in 



2o2 



