THE MALTESE FOSSIL ELEPHAKTS. 75 



When the lunare, unciform, first, second, fourth, and fifth metacarpals shown in 

 PI. XXI., are compared with the foot-bones PI. XVI. fig. 3, PI. XVIII. fig. 7, PI. XIX. 

 figs. 6, 7, & 9, and PI. XX. figs. 2, 3, 14, & 16, and in consideration that the epiphyses 

 of the metacarpals are consolidated, and that the prominences on the carpal bones are 

 bold and well defined, I see no possible conclusion to arrive at than that they represent 

 portions of the fore foot of an adult pygmy form of Elephant. Even allowing for the 

 preservative influence of calcareous infiltrations in filling up and consolidating solutions 

 of continuity and preserving the outline of a cartilaginous surface, there is not only 

 the matured aspect of the carpal, but, I repeat, the epiphyses of the metacarpal bones 

 are completely solidified. 



The left lunare (PI. XXI. fig. 1) might, as regards characters, be considered that of 

 the young of specimen B, or even of the still smaller lunare shown in PI. XVIII. fig. 4. 

 Here there is the same large sloping ulnar facet, the excavated border for the scaphoid, 

 the deep concavities for the radius and magnum, and the knob at the apex of the 

 bone which characterize the above as compared with that of the largest form 

 (PI. XVIII. fig. 1). Strange to say, the last is from Mnaidra, and the three others 

 were obtained from Benghisa, so fruitful of remains of the small form. The following 

 are the dimensions of fig. 1 — length 1'8 inch, breadth 1'7, thickness 0*9, radial surface 

 1-5 by 1-1, magnal surface 1-5 by 1-5, ulnar 0*7 by 0-6, cuneiform 1-2. The scaphoidal 

 is abraded. The dorsal surface, as in PI. XVIII. fig. 4, is more hollow than in the 

 other two larger bones; but these may be, as well as several other characters, only 

 mere individual differences. 



Unciform. — There are two specimens precisely alike, and which undoubtedly belonged 

 to the same individual. The right is considerably eroded by decay ; but the left (PI. 

 XXI. fig. 2) is perfect. In outline, and the characters pointed out on the upper sur- 

 faces of PI. XVII. figs. 9 & 12, it seems to resemble the latter more than the other. 

 The following are its dimensions as compared with them — maximum length 1'9 inch, 

 breadth 17, cuneiform aspect 1-8 by 1-3, fifth metacarpal facet 0-8 by 0-6, fourth 

 metacarpal facet 1-2 by 1-1, third metacarpal 1-1 by 0*3, magnal 1'4 by 0-5, thick- 

 ness 1*4. 



First Metacarjjcd. — The difficulties in distinguishing certain of the long bones of the 

 fore and hind feet from each other, more especially among the diversified and often im- 

 perfect materials in the collection, are here shown. The characteristic bone (PI. V. fig. 4) 

 might have as likely been a first metatarsal of the larger form as a first metacarpal of 

 the smaller, but for its diminutive compeer (PI. XXI. figs. 3 & 3«), which was found 

 close to the lunare and unciform (figs. 1 & 2), and the following metacarpal bones, all 

 of which belong unquestionably to the same left foot. The characters I shall describe 

 as diagnostic of PI. V. fig. 4, are here repeated. Moreover the epiphyses of fig. 3 are 

 consolidated; and the outline and facets are so pronounced, that there is no getting 

 over the belief that it is a matured bone. The knob on the lower aspect of the proximal 



l2 



