ELEPHANT AND MASTODON. 65 



loped in antero-posterior succession in the elephant does 

 not differ from that of the mastodon, as had been previously 

 supposed, he insists that the characters presented by the 

 number as well as by the form of all the parts of the skeleton 

 are alike in both ; that the separate bones are so precisely 

 similar that, when met with detached, it is exceedingly diffi- 

 cult to decide whether they belong to mastodon or to ele- 

 phant ; that, as regards the structure of the teeth, there is a 

 series of intermediate gradations forming a passage from the 

 one genus into the other; and that the observed differences 

 in these organs are systematically of no greater signification 

 than as indicative of the kind of vegetable food upon which 

 the several species subsisted.' Guided by these views, M. 

 de Blainville has abandoned Cuvier's genus of Mastodon, 

 and, like the earlier observers, he has united it with the 

 elephant, under the common generic name of Elephas, of 

 which he forms two sections, Lamellidontes and Mastoclontes. 

 The former includes the elephants proper, viz. the two existing 

 species, with JE. primigenius doubtfully admitted as a distinct 

 form, and E. latidens, under which name he unites the two 

 species M. Elephanto'ides and M. latidens, described by Clift. 

 Of the second section, comprising the typical mastodons, M. 

 de Blainville admits only foiir species, viz. E. {Mast.) OMoticus, 

 E. angustidens, E. Andium, and E. Tapiro'ides, together with 

 M. Sivalensis as a doubtfully established species. M. de 

 Blainville's work is illustrated with an admirable series of 

 representations of the osteology and dentition of the different 

 species, and he has made a valuable contribution to the 

 palaeontology of the Proboscidea, by defining the character 

 of M. Andium, which was distributed among several nominal 

 species by Cuvier. He has also thrown considerable light on 

 M. Tapiro'ides, by means of the materials collected by M. 

 Lartet, in the South of France, which he has combined 

 under this specific name with remains derived from diffe- 

 rent parts of Europe. But there are weighty objections to 

 the rest of the details of this portion of the ' Osteographie.' 

 Although the consideration of the teeth is of paramount 

 importance in every question connected with zoological 

 arrangement, it is to be remarked that M. de Blainville has 

 nowhere adverted to the occurrence of premolars in the 

 upper jaw of certain species of mastodon, the presence of 

 which — first observed by Cuvier in M. angustidens — has 

 been clearly established by Kaup in the young of M. longiros- 

 tris. The author of the ' Osteographie ' describes them as 



' Loc. cit. p. 2. 

 VOL. I. p 



