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



with an occasional ridge, even in upper teeth '. Here, again, if disposed to lay stress on 

 the thick ridges, there would be no difficulty in creating two forms ; but enough is 

 known of the errors of palaeontologists to make me chary in admitting even the two 

 fragmentary yet very remarkable specimens^ as belonging to species distinct from 

 their thinner-plated compeers I 



As before remarked, aU the Maltese fossil elephants present a crown-pattern which 

 differs very little individually. In crowns newly invaded there is considerable crimping * ; 

 but as soon as the digitations are worn out, the section shows a disk expanded in the 

 centre, with a decided abrupt angulation and the "fine" or "faint" crimping on the 

 cement side of the machserides °. This crimping is always most distinct on thin-plated 

 or moderately thick-plated surfaces, and dies away almost altogether on very thick 

 enamel * ; however, it is seemingly not constant. 



The dentition, therefore, of the Maltese fossil elephants seems to me to confirm the 

 presence of two species, the ridge-formula of whose molars runs thus : — The smallest 

 species holds, exclusive of talons, in its milk-series 3+5 -(-8-9, and in the true molars 

 8-9 + 10-1-12; the large form gives 3 + 6 + 8-9 in the former, and 8-9 + 10 + 12-13 in 

 the latter. 



The nearest known species to which the above assimilate in the numerical estimate 

 of their dental ridges, is the Elephas meridionalis ; and the closest approximation of the 

 worn crowns and character of the ridges are to the same in Elej^has antiquus. They 

 differ, however, widely from both, and justly deserve separate positions in synoptical 

 tables of species. 



3. A Stylo-hyoid of very diminutive size', as compared with either recent species, 

 even in their very youthful states, points towards the presence of the smallest form. 



4. The Vertebral Column displays the elements of what had belonged to two distinct 

 forms differing much in dimensions ; indeed by taking several dorsal vertebrae and their 

 ribs, and the atlas and largest cervical vertebrae and their ribs**, we have repre- 

 sented two mature animals differing in height, as compared with recent species, to the 

 extent of individuals varying from 4-5 up to 7 feet. The decided character of the 

 atlas ^ seems to place the smaller species, as does its lower jaw, for the most part with 

 the African Elephant. 



5. The only fragment oi a, Pelvis shows'", as compared with a similar portion in the 

 Zebbug collection ", a somewhat remarkable internal arching or " beehive " construction 

 of the acetabulum. Being a mature bone, it represents the smaller form, and in relation 

 to the other specimen is somewhat larger. The two differ decidedly in respect of the 



' This is the case in PI. VIII. fig. 1. ' PI. VIII. fig. 7, and No. 78 of Colleetion. 



' PI. VIII. fig. 1, or PI. VII. figs. 1 & 2. ' PI. II. fig. 9. 



' PL II. fig. 7. ' PI. IX. fig. la. ' PI. XV. fig. 10. 



' Compare figs. 7 & 8 with fig. 9 of PI. XI., and ribs, figs. 2 & 3 of PI. X., with Pi. IX. figs. 6 & 7. 



' PI. XIII. fig. 1. "> Pi. XV. figs. 9 & 9ff. '■ Trans. Zool. Soc. vi. pi. 50. fig. 31. 



