56 ME. A. L. ADAMS ON THE OSTEOLOGY OF 



spine is more pronounced in the African ; and in «, fig. 9, it is deeper than in either. 

 As to the radial pit (5), the loss of the epiphysis somewhat vitiates the outline ; but it 

 is decidedly deep and apparently not so open as in the African. 



On comparing the above carefully with the fragment from Zebbug, described by Busk ' 

 as portion of the ulna of his E. melitensis, I find little, if any, discrepancies worth men- 

 tioning. The measurements of the specimens agree in a remarkable manner ; I must 

 observe, however, that the pit or fossa in front of the inner condyle, so pronounced in the 

 ulna of recent species and seemingly indistinct in the specimen of E. melitensis described 

 by Busk, is very deep and prominent in fig. 9. The anterior aspect of the shaft is 

 concave, at least as far as the fragment shows, which is to about the commencement of 

 the lower third. The external aspect just under the head is more hollowed out than 

 the internal ; and although the above is not quite an adult condition, it most probably 

 belonged to an animal nearly full-grown and of small size, equivalent to the computed 

 dimensions of the owner of the humerus (PI. XII. fig. 1) and the radius and ulna (PI. 

 XIII. figs. 2 & 3). 



Young and immature Radius and Ulna. 



The ulna and the fragments of the proximal end of the radius (PI. XXI. figs. 10, 

 10 a) were found in situ with the humerus fig. 9 and other bones represented in the 

 plated The larger radius (fig. 15) was' broken during removal, and there is a small 

 portion of the centre of the shaft wanting ; it is, however, sufficiently preserved for com- 

 parison with the young radii figured and described by Busk ^. Of course the prominent 

 ridges of the old bone are not defined ; but the outline of the humeral facet (fig. 15 a) 

 resembles that of the old bone (PI. X. fig. 7 a). In this young bone the anterior ridge 

 rises in the upper third, and there is no remarkable flattening under the head as in the 

 African. A transverse section at the middle of the shaft (5) gives the outline shown by 

 Busk in the young radius from Zebbug* ; and the distal epiphysial junction is similar to 

 another \ These discrepancies, however, are questionable specific distinctions, and cannot 

 be safely utilized without further data. At all events the above radius, as compared with 

 an African foetal bone shown by Busk ^, might be considered as representing a young 

 elephant with its middle milk-teeth in wear and of a diminutive size as compared with 

 other elephants. The comparison moveover between fig. 15 and the fragment « of a 

 radius attached to ulna, fig. 10, indicates a good-deal older individual. 



' Trans. Zool. Soc. pi. 48. figs. 24 & 24a. 



' The fragment of skull (PI. I. fig. 18), the fore-foot bones (PI. XXI. figs. 1 to 7), also scapula (flg. 8), 

 humerus and ulna (figs. 9 & 10), the fragment of vertebral arch (fig. 11), the rib (fig. 12), tibia (fig. 13), larger 

 tibia (fig. 14), and radius (fig. 15) were aU found jammed together under a large stone in Benghisa Gap. See 

 my "Work on Malta, page 189. 



' Trans. Zool. Soc. vi. p. 280, pi. 47. figs. 18, 19. ' Ibid. p. 281. no. 19. 



' Ibid. p. 281. no. 18. » Ibid. fig. 40, p. 277. 



