THE MALTESE FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 53 



together with the elevated prominence for the tuberosity, and the large hollow for 

 the tendon. This specimen and the outline of the proximal articular surface contrast 

 veiy favourably with a similar bone described by Busk as that of the adult humerus 

 of E. falconeri '. There are differences, however, which seem to separate them from 

 PI. XII. fig. 1. Indeed, in the above the anterior border is far more hollow under the 

 head than obtains in PI. XII. fig. 1 ; and the size, at all events of my specimen, is cha- 

 racteristic of the young of a larger elephant, therefore may probably have belonged to 

 the largest form. 



2. The next humerus (PI. XXI. figs. 9 & 9a) is interesting in having been found with 

 the ulna and fragment of radius (figs. 10 & 10 a), besides other bones shown in the Plate 

 and referable to the same individual. This humerus and the fragment of the adult bone 

 of the smallest forms (PI. XII. fig. 1) seem to agree as far as their comparison will 

 admit ; and in general outline fig. 9 is also like the young humerus described and figured 

 by Busk I 



The following are the characters of figs. 9 & 9 a. First, the contour of the posterior 

 border shows a considerable concavity under the head, as in the preceding specimen, 

 and more so than apparently obtains either in PI. XII. fig. 1 or in the humerus of 

 E. falconeri^. 



There is a well-marked depression on the inner side of the posterior angle. 



The supinator ridge is more oblique and like the African ; but it runs up and joins 

 the posterior border, as in the Asiatic. 



The inner condyloid lidge is rounded and thick, the latter being 0'7 inch at the 

 epiphysis of the inner condyle. The deltoid ridge and the bicipital groove {b, 9 a) are 

 unfortunately too much decayed to admit of comparison. 



3. The fragment of the scapula PI. XXI. fig. 8 very possibly belongs to humerus 

 fig. 9 ; the epiphysis is gone, the head, neck, and a small portion of the body being the 

 only parts preserved. 



The circumference of its neck is 3 iaches. 



4. I now come to point out the interesting fragment of a scapula shown in PI. IX. 

 figs. 5 & 5a. It is in all respects similar to the portion figured and described by Busk* as 

 doubtfully belonging to E. falconeri. In this uncertainty I fully concur, and cannot, 

 after much trouble, find that either has any possible aflfinities to the proboscidian 

 scapula, or, indeed, to any recent fossil mammal with which I have had opportunities of 

 comparing them. 



The observations made by Busk in regard to the Zebbug specimen apply verbatim to 

 figs. 5 & 5 a, and show that, to whatever species they belong, they present a community 

 of characters quite peculiar and distinctive. 



• Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. yi. p. 258, cut 16. 



' Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. vi. p. 280, pi. 52. fig. 50. ^ Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. vi. pi. 49. fig. 26. 



' Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. vi. p. 254, pi. 47. figs. 14 & 14a. 



