THE MALTESE FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 27 



4. The lower molar referable to this series is well shomi in the fragment No. 81 a 

 (PI. Hi. fig. 2). It has, like the others, a well-defined pressure-scar posteriorly. 



5. There is another, posterior portion (No. 81b) of evidently the opposite tooth of per- 

 haps the same individual. This specimen shows a pronounced xmsterior pressure-scar 

 1-3 inch in height by 1-6 uich in breadth. Here also the cement is in excess. Allowing 

 for the displacement of the machserides by the longitudinal fracture in fig. 2, the expan- 

 sions of disks, angulations, and faint crimpuig are veiy evident. The enamel is nearly 

 0-2 inch in thickness^; and had it not been for the clear mdications of an advancing 

 tooth, the two specimens might have been fairly considered to belong to the last of the 

 series. Fig. 2 contains four plates in 2-5 inches, which would make the tooth to have 

 been from 6 -5 to nearly 7 inches in length. 



Summary. — It seems to me evident from the foregoing dcta that all the molars just 

 described cannot fairly claim to be considered other than penultimate true molars. 

 That they have no title to the position of antepenultimate true molars is proved, not 

 only from the preceding molars, but from their ridge-formula, crown, constituents, and 

 fangs. 



1 . I shall in the first place consider their individual affinities. As regards the dimen- 

 sions of the molars in A & B series and their rami, it must be allowed that the contrast 

 as regards both is seemingly at variance with any assumed specific relationship. The 

 molars (PL V. figs, \a8cb) contrast with that of PI. XL figs. 10 and 10 a, in respect of 

 outline and crown-constituents, the ridge-formula and dimensions being equal. Thus the 

 crown of the first is long and narrow, whilst that of the latter displays a broad rounded 

 front, naiTOwing posteriorly after the manner of the last true molars (PL VII. fig. 2). 

 Again, there are decidedly broader bars of cement between the plates in PL V. fig. 1 than 

 in fig. 10 ; but they agree as regards the thickness of the latter, and enamel, and the 

 pattern of the disks. 



2. The rami differ also. Allowing that PL V. figs. la&.b have been much injured, 

 whilst PL XI. figs. 10 & 10 « has lost a portion of its posterior border ; nevertheless the 

 discrepancies in the dimensions, as will be seen when I come to consider them, render it 

 extremely likely that, if both jaws hold penultimate true molars, the owners belonged to 

 forms or species differing much in size, also in the configuration and crown-constituents 

 of their molars. 



3. As regards C series, there is a considerable difference in respect of size between its 

 members and either of the other two series. With A series there is no affinity what- 

 ever ; and most assuredly a comparison between the two surfaces in wear, alone, at once 

 proclaims them distinct in every respect. Again, as compared with B series, unless the 

 latter is allowed to be a small variety or a sexual condition, I see no manner of 

 arrivmg at any other conclusion than that these penultimate teeth represent three 

 distinct forms of Elephant ; and yet as regards length the members of B & C series 



' The enamel is broader than shown in the figure. 



e2 



