458 = J. Gunn—Does the Mammoth occur in the Forest-bed ? 
founded my opinion in favour of intermediate forms upon the dis- 
covery by Mr. Savin, sen., of the tooth of an Elephant described by 
Professor Leith Adams, Paleeon. Monograph Fossil Elephants, part 3, 
plate xx. fig. 3, as E. primigenius? with a query. It was remark- 
able for the fineness and regularity of the enamel-plates and also 
their width. In these respects it corresponded with similar teeth 
found by Mr. Savin, jun., near the same spot at Overstrand, but at 
a higher level. It differs from them, however, in its excessive 
crimping, while the width of the tooth was such as to leave no room 
for the suggestion that the crimping was due to contraction; neither 
was it due to the worn-out condition of the tooth, because it had 
evidently pervaded the entire tooth in its primary and perfect state. 
This crimping removes it from the ordinary type of E. primgenius, 
and, as it differs essentially from all the other species or varieties of 
the Elephant, it appears to justify its claim to be considered at least 
an intermediate variety. 
I have myself obtained several specimens which tend to establish 
an intermediate form. One resembled the several teeth found by 
Mr. Savin, jun., at Overstrand. It is an upper tooth with 8 plates 
remaining, much worn, letter a, tray 4, Norwich Museum. Another, 
not worn so low, with 14 plates remaining, is No. 223, above men- 
tioned, which was labelled by Dr. Falconer “Old type of Elephas 
primigenius.” To these may be added several more similar specimens. 
Some, again remarkable for the like characteristics, are of much 
greater size. I may particularize a specimen (lower jaw) with 8 
plates, remarkably straight and parallel, figured plate 1, letter I, new 
edition of Sketch of Geology of Norfolk, and especially a ramus 
with the penultimate molar perfect, plate iv. fig. 2 of the same edition. 
These were submitted to a meeting of the Geological Society at 
Somerset House, in 1867, under the names of Lepiodon minor and 
Leptodon giganteus. I then stated that my object was not so much 
to establish a new species or variety, notwithstanding that EZ. (Lepto- 
don) was as fully entitled to be considered such, as any of the recog- 
nized species, but merely to point out how slender was the partition 
which seemed to divide and separate them one from another, and 
that they were all so linked together, that it was difficult to say 
where one began and another ended. 
Dr. Falconer, who was not present at the meeting, admitted that 
I ran him harder than anybody else, but stoutly defended the sacred 
precincts of his established species and subgenera. 
In the year following he came to Irstead with M. HE. Lartet, and 
we agreed to submit our differences of opinion to this distinguished 
Paleeontologist. He looked carefully at the ramus No. 361, above 
mentioned, plate iv. fig. 2, and viewing it on every side, said, ‘It is 
not &. meridionalis, neither is it E. antiquus, nor E. primigenius,” and 
he did me the honour to name it E. Gunnii. “He also said the same 
of No. 306, a fragmentary jaw with a penultimate tooth. I do not 
mention this out of vanity, but simply in order that the truth may 
be known with respect to the variations of the supposed species of 
Elephant. 
