ELEPHANT AND MASTODON. 



55 



Fisclier de Waldheim, in 1829, proposed tlie separation 

 from the mammoth of no less than five fossil species of 

 elephant, founded upon remains occurring in Russia. These 

 he has severally named — U. proboletes, E. campylotes, E. Ka- 

 mensMi, E. Panicus, and E. pygmceus.^ Dr. Eichwald went 

 still further, and added a sixth species, from Poland, under 

 the name of E. odontotyr annus. ^ But the almost universal 

 consent of palaeontologists is against these so-called species, 

 which are considered to be nothing more than varieties in 

 the teeth dependent upon age and sex, in individuals of the 

 mammoth. 



M. Morren, under the name of Elephas macrorhynchus, has 

 lately proposed a new species for some of the fossil remains 

 found in Belgium ; but the grounds upon which it rests do 

 not appear to be more valid than in the case of the Russian 

 and Polish species.^ 



Mastodon. — In regard to Mastodon: the first determined 

 species of this genus was the M. Olvioticus* of North America. 

 The abundant remains found nearly all over the temperate 

 parts of the United States had, as in the instance of the 

 mammoth of Europe, attracted the notice of observant tra- 

 vellers to this great extinct animal, upwards of a century ago. 

 But, tni the time of Daubenton, hardly any progress had 

 been made towards a definite idea of its nature. This cele- 

 brated naturalist, in 1762, ascertained the close resemblance 

 of the femur and tusks to those of the elephant : but the 

 molars appeared to him to present a nearer approach to the 

 teeth of the hippopotamus, and he was puzzled whether to 

 ascribe the fossils to one or to two distinct animals.^ Buifon 

 participated in these doubts, but inferred that a part of the 

 remains indicated the former existence of a terrestrial animal 

 which had become extinct, larger than the elephant.^ Peter 



' Fischer de Waldheim, Bullet, de la 

 Soc. de Moscou, 1829, torn. i. p. 275; 

 Memoires de la Soc. de Moscou, torn. i. 

 p. 285. 



^ Eichwald, Nova Acta Acad. Cses. 

 Leop. Car. Natur. Curios. 1 834, vol. x^ni. 

 11. 723, tab. 63, figs. 1 and 2. 



^ Morren, Bulletin de la Soc. Geol. de 

 France, torn. ii. p. 231. 



* As in the case of the Mammoth {E. 

 jorimigenms, Blimi.), the specific name 

 given by Bliimenbach to the North Ame- 

 rican mastodon, M. Ohiotims, is here 

 adopted instead either of M. gigantcus 

 or M. maximus, the names applied by 

 Cuvier at different times. Blumenbach, 

 in his ' Handbuch der Naturgeschichte,' 

 1797, had characterized the extinct ani- 



mal by the form of the teeth, and called 

 it Mammiit Ohioticum, as a species of a 

 peculiar genus, before the appearance of 

 Ciivier's memoir (Annal. du Mus. torn. 

 vi. p. 260, 1805), in which the designa- 

 tion of M. giganteus is first applied. 

 This latter was abandoned (Oss. Foss. 

 4to edit, of 1824) for M. maximus. If 

 the law of priority left a choice, M. 

 Ohioticus would still be preferable to 

 either of the names given by Cu\-ier, as 

 the species is by no means the giant of 

 the family. 



^ Daubenton, Actes de I'Academie des 

 Sciences, 1762; and Histoire Natur.de 

 Buffon, tom xi. 



" BuflFon, Histoire Natur. tom, xi. 

 p. 86. 



