THREE EXTINCT SPECIES OF ELEPHANT. 



281 



much more acute, leading to the supposition that at the upper end the bone might have 

 presented the acute angle which is exhibited in the African and not in the Indian radius. 

 The lower epiphysial surfaces again exhibit different contours, as may be seen in the 

 Plate, where however, unfortunately, one of the bones is represented on the anterior, 

 and the other on the posterior aspect. I have therefore subjoined the outlines of this 

 surface taken in corresponding positions of the bones, so as to show at a glance the not 

 inconsiderable difference they present. 



42 



'" ) (is) 



19 



41. Transverse sections of shaft of radius. 



42. Outline of distal epiphysial surfaces. 



From what has been said, it cannot be denied that the same distinction exists between 

 the very young dwarf radii as I have attempted to point out in the exoccipital bones 

 and humerus. And considering the large size, at what would seem not very different 

 ages, and the African tendency faintly exhibited in the radius fig. 18, I should be 

 inclined to refer that to the young of HI. melitensis. That neither of the small radii 

 just described is a foetal bone of a larger form of Elephant, is abundantly shown by their 

 dense texture and aspect of greater age, as compared with the far larger radius of the 

 uterine fcetus of ^. africanus, of which an outline woodcut (No. 37) is given in p. 277. 



(2) Hinder Extremity. 



A portion of the shaft of a very young femur of the largest Maltese Elephant has 

 been already described and figured ; and I have already noticed the almost entire inter- 

 epiphysial shaft of E.falconeri. No specimens of that bone of younger age, corre- 

 sponding with the very young liumeri, radii, &c. above noticed, occur in the collection ; 

 but of the tibia numerous specimens, of various ages, and some very young, exist. Of 

 these, however, all it will be worth while here to notice more particularly are those 

 represented in PI. XLVII. figs. 15, 16, 17, 20, and 21. Of these I regard figs. 16 and 17 

 as belonging to a different type from that represented in figs. 20 and 21. 



Figs. 16 and 21, each having both epiphysial surfaces almost entire, are pretty nearly 

 of the same length, and to all appearance, so far as can be judged from the condition of 

 the surface, of about the same age. They admit therefore of tolerably fair comparison. 

 In the first place, as the figures will show, the bones differ a good deal in proportionate 

 thickness ; stated in numbers the differences in the various dimensions are as under : — 



