74 



MR. A. L. ADAMS ON THE OSTEOLOGY OF 



B Series. — 1. A smaller-sized unciform, differing also in character, is shown in fig. 9. 

 It is of the left foot, and its upper surface is abraded ; and a transverse fracture when 

 the bone was fresh had displaced the metacarpal surfaces, so that little more than its 

 general dimensions can be relied on safely. At a glance it will be seen that it is 

 broader relatively than fig. 12. Now, as we have seen that the smaller cuneiforms 

 (PI. XVIII. figs. 7, 8, & 9) show this peculiarity as compared with the largest (figs. 2 

 & 5), the above may be regarded as belonging to the same type or form. 



2. Another left unciform (b) is considerably smaller than fig. 9, but displays the 

 like broad cuneiformal aspect. It is important to show their differences in comparison 

 with each other and recent species ; I therefore give the dimensions in the following 

 Table :— 



Table of comparisons between the unciform in the Maltese and recent species. 



Specimens. 



Length 



and 

 breadth. 



Cuneiform 

 surface. 



Fifth 



metacarpal 



facet. 



Fourth 



metacarpal 



facet. 



Third 



metacarpal 



facet. 



Magnal 

 facet. 



Thickness. 



Large (Maltese) 



Large (Maltese), PI. XVII. fig. 12. 



Large (Maltese) 



SmaU (Maltese), PI. XVII. fig. 9 . 



Small (Maltese) 



2677 a, R. C. S. (Asiatic) 



Sumatraa Elephant (B. M.) 



inches. 

 3-4 X 3-2 

 3-3 X 3-2 

 3-4 



2-5 X 2-4 

 2-1 X 2-0 

 3-4 X 3-3 

 3-7 X 3-2 



inches. 

 3-4 X 2-6 

 3-3 X 2-4 

 3-0 



2-4 X 2-4 

 1-8 X 1-8 

 3'0x2-4 

 3-5 X 2-4 



inches. 



1'5 

 2-2 X 1-4 



1-3 

 1-8 X 1-0 

 1-3 X 0-7 

 2-2 X 1-4 

 20 X 1-6 



inches. 



2-2 X 2-2 

 2-1 X 2-2 



l-8xi-4 

 1-4 



2-2 X 2-2 

 2-5 X 1-8 



iiicheB. 



2-3 X 0-7 

 2-3 X 0-7 



1-8 X 6-4 

 1-3 X 0-5 

 2-4 X 0-6 

 1-8 X 0-6 



inches. 

 2-6 X 1-2 

 2-5 X 1-2 

 2-0 X 1-1 

 2-2 X 0-8 



2-7xi-5 

 2-3 X 1-5 



inches. 

 2-5 

 2-4 

 2-4 

 2-0 

 1-5 

 2-7 

 2-4 



It will be seen in this Table that the largest Maltese unciform represents an animal 

 nearly as large as the Sumatran (B. M.); whilst the smallest would indicate an 

 Elephant somewhere, as Dr. Falconer has remarked, about the height of a large 

 Javan one-horned Rhinoceros, with characters differing as regards the configuration of 

 its cuneiform and unciform from the larger form. 



Portion of a Left Fore foot found in situ. 



Among the very variable materials discovered by me in different localities, one of 

 the most heterogeneous assemblages of Elephantine remains are those figured for the 

 most part in PI. XXI. They were discovered in Benghisa Gap, firmly packed in red 

 soil, and below blocks of water-worn stones, and lay in a space of not more than 

 2 feet either way. Along with the bones shown on PI. XXI. figs. I to 15, were also the 

 skull and tusks (PI. I. fig. 18). The suggestive conditions in which the remains were 

 found have been discussed at some length in my work'. I shall therefore proceed to 

 the description of a portion of a left fore foot found along with the other boneS. The 

 following specimens raise the question at once, whether or not they are to be con- 

 sidered full-grown, immature, or young bones. 



• ' ' NUe Valley and Malta,' p. 189. 



