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



I do not know how far it may be an individual peculiarity, but, as may be noticed in 

 the figure (5), the calcaneal facet (c), which is perfectly horizontal in the recent and, as far 

 as I have been enabled to observe, in the Mammoth, is in this particular instance divided 

 into two facets (c, c) by a prominent ridge and broad fossa, which completely isolate 

 the inner one from even the naviculare. Again, in cuboids of full-grown recent species 

 and even in the young of the Indian, the naviculare and calcaneal surfaces are separated 

 by a deep furrow, which is replaced in all the Maltese elephantine cuboids by ridges. 



The division of the calcaneal facet does not show a corresponding solution of con- 

 tiguity in any of the heel-bones described. Again, the fossil displays a deeper inter- 

 mediate hollow between the fourth and fifth metatarsal surfaces than is apparently the 

 case in recent or the two just noticed. It is the symmetry of outline, however, of fig. 

 5 as compared in some measure with fig. 4, but chiefly with all other cuboids belonging 

 to living and extinct Elephants that I have examined, that gives to the specimen in 

 question an apparently distinctive character. 



The anterior and posterior cuneiform facets occupy the margins instead of the entire 

 upper surface, as in the two last; the former is 1 by 0-3 inch, tlie latter 0-7 by 0-2. 



Summary. — In compounding the various characters and dimensions of the above 

 cuboids, as far as their conditions will allow, there seems to me no pronounced similari- 

 ties in outline between any of the fossils and either recent or any extinct species. 

 Whilst as regards dimensions fig. 4 might well represent an Elephant as large as the 

 Sumatran in the British Museum, and fig. 5 an individual of nearly 5 feet, the other speci- 

 men would not accord with the astragalus PI. XVI. fig. 3, but with an animal of rather 

 smaller dimensions than the owner of PI. XVII. fig. 5, although the two latter seemingly 

 differ in characters. At the same time, whilst we are bound to notice every little distinc- 

 tion in such an inquiry as the one in which I am engaged, I feel that what appears to be 

 a specific character may turn out to be only an individual abnormality ; and this I am 

 quite prepared to accept in regard to what has been stated of fig. 5. At all events we 

 may fairly conclude that the collection represents the cuboid of a large and a small form 

 of Elephant. 



External Cuneiform. 



There are two examples (right and left) from Mnaidra Gap ; the na\-iculare surface 

 of the former is represented in PI. XVII. fig. 2. Both refer to the largest forms, and, 

 as regard dimensions, might have belonged to two individuals of nearly the same size ; 

 the larger is evidently of the size of the owners of the largest astragalus, naviculare, and 

 cuboid just described. 



The outline of the bone in the two recent species does not diflFer materially ; the 

 usual irregularity of the lateral facets seems common to both living and extmct 

 species. Thus the above and the Sumatran and an external cuneiform (36612) of a 

 Mammoth in the Palaeontological Collection, B. M., have only one anterior facet for 

 the second or middle cuneiform, and the lower cuboidal facet is concave in all; 



