J. Gunn—Does the Mammoth occur in the Forest-bed g 459 
About this time M. Albert Gaudry also honoured me with a visit 
to Irstead; and in his splendid work on the “ Animaux Fossiles de 
Pikermi,” Paris, 1866, he remarks with reference to the £. (Loxodon) 
meridionalis, “This species presents a curious example of slow 
modification ; for at its outset, that is to say, in the Crag, its molars 
have the digitations of enamel sufficiently massive and sufficiently 
distinct to warrant, according to Falconer (Mem. du 3 Juin, 1855, 
in the Proceedings of the Geol. Soc. for 1865), their being attributed 
to the Mastodon; when we follow it into the Forest-bed, we see that 
it gives occasion for that observation of the Reverend Gunn, ‘There 
is a marked difference between the teeth found in the more ancient 
and those found in more recent beds. ‘The mastodontic character of 
the ridges is diminished; the enamel more fine and less rugose’ 
(Sketch of the Geology of Norfolk, 1864). Besides these variations, 
Mr. Gunn showed me in his fine collection at Irstead, near Norwich, 
a molar of the size of that of the Hlephas meridionalis with the plates 
resembling the Hlephas antiquus, and another molar in which the 
plates as thick as in the Hlephas meridionalis are also serrées one 
against another as in the Elephas primigenius. Reciproquement, there 
is in the Museum of Norwich a molar which has its plates minces 
as in the Hlephas primigenius, and nevertheless very écartees to 
one another.”’—Considerations générales sur les animaux fossiles de 
Pikermi, note, page 38. 
Thus partial resemblances to the H. primigenius were noticed by 
M. Gaudry, both in the Norwich Museum, and my own collection, 
but no instance of that Elephant fully developed, and I may safely 
say, none could have escaped his penetration. 
The Windham specimen in the Norwich Museum, a mandible with 
the penultimate molar on either side, suggests, in my humble opinion, 
the nearest approach, in the form of the jaw, to the E. meridionalis, 
figured plate III. No. 1 in my Sketch, and aseribed by Dr. Falconer, 
after much hesitation, to H. antiquus, and by Professor Leith Adams 
to the broad-toothed variety of that Elephant. This mandible has 
been described by Dr. Falconer in Pal. Mem. vol. ii. page 188, and 
by Professor Adams in the Paleon. Monograph, part 1, ‘ Fossil 
Hlephants,’ as Z. antiquus, p. 89 and p. 53. 
It was observed by Mr. Charlesworth in discussion at the meeting 
of the Geological Society in 1867, on the subject of the Leptodon 
giganteus, that too much reliance was placed upon the teeth, as if 
the dental formula of elephants were the sole criterion of species, 
and too little upon the bones and the anatomical structure. 
The E. (Leptodon) giganteus offers, as a guide to specific determina- 
tion, ampler means and larger portions of the skeleton than any 
other Proboscidean from the Forest-bed series. At the same spot at 
Mundesley, in a bed of sand immediately above the Hlephant-bed 
where the ramus No. 361 was obtained, Mr. Dix has taken an im- 
mense os inomenatum, No. 225 in the Norwich Museum Catalogue, 
described fully by Dr. Falconer, Pal. Mem. vol. ii. p. 141. At the 
same place also, a humerus, No. 200, described by Dr. Falconer, 
ibid. p. 143. It exceeds in length, but not in massiveness, the grand 
