THREE EXTINCT SPECIES OP ELEPHANT. 279 



have been unable to perceive any greater distinction than can be accounted for by dif- 

 ference of age ; but in the two specimens I am now about to refer to, and which appear 

 as nearly as possible in the same stage of development, there is a diflPerence in propor- 

 tionate thickness which cannot be so accounted for. One of the two specimens is 

 figured in PI. LII. figs. 42 and 42 a ; the other has not been figured. At first sight these 

 two fragments might be supposed to be the right and left sides of the same sym- 

 physis, each being about 2 inches long, and broken off, as would seem to be usual, at 

 the part where the ramus is necessarily weakened by the presence of the alveolus of 

 the Srd milk-molar. Closer inspection, however, of the fragments shows that they do 

 not correspond as the opposite portions of the same jaw would. 



The left fragment is thicker than the right, measuring at the smallest part behind the 

 symphysis 0"-5, and the other 0"'4 ; and the distance between the mental foramen and 

 the accessory foramen behind it (single in either case) is, in the left, 0"'35, and, in the 

 right, 0"-45, though this is perhaps not a very important particular. The symphysial 

 facet in the left portion is 1" X 0"-5, and in the left l"x 0"-l. 



The general antero-posterior curve, including that of the diastemic edge, is more 

 rounded in the left fragment. And in consequence of this difference, and from the 

 greater incurvation also, as it were, of the diastemic border, the left fragment, when 

 viewed from above, appears much more rounded on the outer face. 



The differences, in fact, between the two fragments are amply sufficient to show not 

 only that they cannot have belonged to the same individual, but, in my opinion, to 

 indicate an important and, perhaps, a specific distinction, when it is considered that 

 the bones are both in the same stage of development. 



4. Bones of the Extremities. 



I have been unable to detect in the collection any bones belonging to the trunk of very 

 young animals ; but numerous specimens of various bones belonging to the fore and 

 hinder extremities occur, amongst some of which, as it seems to me, significant indications 

 of two distinct forms may be perceived. 



(1) Anterior Extremity. 

 Of very young humeri we are in possession of three specimens, sufficiently entu-e to 

 afford some diagnostic characters ; two of these are figured in PI. LII. figs. 49 & 50. The 

 former is the almost entire shaft of the left humerus ; it is apparently slightly rolled at 

 each end, and an angular fragment has been recently broken off obliquely at the upper 

 end in front. No part of either epiphysial surface is left ; but it is nevertheless clear 

 that the specimen represents very nearly the entire length of the interepiphysial shaft. 

 With due allowance for the great difference in age, the general characters of this speci- 

 men correspond so closely with those of the humerus figured in PI. XLIX. fig. 2G, that 

 little doubt can be entertained with respect to their belonging to the same species. One 



