300 MR. BUSK ON THE EEMAINS OF 



to which it is appended. In the Zebbug form there is never a trace of this outlying- 

 loop ; and the disks, although open, exhibit only a very slight tendency to angular 

 expansion. The character is most pronounced in the two milk-teeth, figs. 4 and 5, 

 whilst it is entirely wanting in the penultimate upper molar, fig. 10. In fact this tooth 

 differs more from the ordinary type of the African species than does the corresponding 

 molar of E. antiquus. The amount of agreement and of difference in the molars of the 

 two species is best appreciated by comparing the last lower molar (figs. 11-13) of the 

 Zebbug form with the corresponding molar of the African species." 



Having thus given Dr. Falconer's descriptions of the teeth, and his valuable observa- 

 tions concerning them, it only remains to inquire whether any evidence is afforded by 

 these parts of the existence of more than one species of Elephant of dwarf size. This 

 is a point to which Dr. Falconer has nowhere adverted ; and it was therefore a matter of 

 considerable interest to me, after I had been led from the study of the other bones to 

 the conclusion that the Zebbug collection contained the remains of two small species, to 

 ascertain whether similar evidence was afforded by the teeth. And it seems to me that 

 they do indubitably present sufficient e^'idence to that effect. 



When the teeth are placed side by side, it is at once quite obvious that they may be 

 divided into two groups, at any rate so far as the true molars are concerned. These 

 groups differ very markedly, more especially in the thickness of the plates, or in the 

 number comprised within a given length, as well as in the form of the machcerides. 

 What the difference may be, if any, in the numerical formula, I am not prepared to say, 

 as the materials are too scanty to allow of the solution of the question, which must wait 

 to be decided by the very abundant materials since collected by Dr. Leith Adams. I 

 shall content myself here simply with pointing out the striking differences exhibited 

 between the teeth of the two species as they are represented in the Zebbug collection, 

 and shown in the figures in PI. LII. 



If we compare, for instance, the m. 1 represented in fig. 9 with either of those shown 

 in figs. 11-13, but more especially with the first, of which a side view is also given, such 

 a difference will at once be perceived in the form of the macheerides or disks of wear, 

 and in the thickness of the plates, as to stamp them as totally distinct forms. In the 

 tooth fig. 9, nine ridges are comprised in a length of about 2""5, which gives an average 

 thickness of each plate of about 0"'27, whilst in fig. 11 seven plates occupy a length of 

 3'-0, equivalent to an average thickness of about 0"-43. Again, if we look at the form 

 of the machserides in the two cases, the comparative narrowness of the disks and the 

 disposition to true crimping of the enamel-edge, with the complete absence of any median 

 angular expansion, in fig. 9 cannot fail to be at once perceived*. Again, in fig. 11 it 

 will be seen that the hinder two or three plates, which are just coming into wear, exhibit 



* The difference is perhaps more marked in the actual teeth, owing to the circumstance that the enamel-edges 

 are represented rather too thick in fig. 9. 



