e. (loxodon) priscus. 



95 



inferred that the valley of the Rhine was formerly inhabited 

 by a species of Elephant which more nearly resembled the 

 existing African species than E. primigenius does the existing 

 Indian. But he did not hazard an opinion whether or no it 

 was specifically different from the existing African, which 

 conld only be satisfactorily established by the discovery of a 

 skull, and he named the species provisionally. Cuvier ques- 

 tioned the fossil authenticity of these specimens, and of other 

 instances of the same nature, which he enumerates. In the 

 autumn of 1847 I had an opportunity of examining the spe- 

 cimens above referred to, in company with Dr. Goldfuss, at 

 Bonn. They were much sun-cracked, resembling in this 

 respect grinders of the existing Asiatic Elephant as they are 

 presented in India after long exposure to atmospheric agen- 

 cies ; but the fracture and texture of the ivory yielded the 

 glistening sericeous appearance characteristic of recent teeth, 

 and conveyed to my mind a corresponding impression that 

 the molar was probably of modern origin. 



The celebrated C. E. von Baer describes, with exemplary 

 caution, two reputed fossil molars from the north of Germany, 

 resembling exactly those of the African Elephant. One of 

 these he unhesitatingly regards as being of modern origin, 

 from the circumstance that some of the cellular membrane 

 lining the alveolus was still preserved upon the tooth. 1 The 

 other, discovered in the sandy foundations of the monastery 

 of St. Adalbert, near Dantzic, is, from the description, mani- 

 festly of the African Elephant; and the tooth, from its 

 partially worn condition, is evidently not one that had been 

 naturally shed. Yon Baer cites the opinion of Eathke, that 

 it may have been derived from a casualty in some travelling 

 menagerie, but he with reason doubts if an African Elephant 

 was ever brought to Dantzic, either during the Roman 

 empire or subsecpiently. After carefully balancing the tex- 

 ture and consistence of the specimen and the circumstances 

 under which it appears to have been found, he could arrive 

 at no satisfactory opinion whether it was really fossil or not, 

 and he leaves the point undetermined. 2 It may be remarked 

 on this head, that the freshness of preservation of teeth and 

 tusks of Elephants discovered in Post-Pliocene deposits fur- 

 nishes no argument against their being of really fossil 



1 ' Quid amplius, tunica* et telfe cellu- 

 losse alveolum vestientis partem in dente 

 Biccatam invenimus. Partes molles per 

 tut s.ecula in nostris regionibus servari 

 posse credat Judseus Apella ! Nos vero 

 ilciitini non fossilem suspicamur.' He 

 also describes a tooth certainly fossil, 



but of uncertain origin, in the Museum 

 of St. Petersburg, referring it to E. pris- 

 cus (Mem. de l'Acad. de St. Petcrsbourg, 

 torn, i., Bulletins Scientif. p. 16). 



2 ' Sic status fossilis testimonia corta 

 non cognoscimus et non habemus quo 

 catalogi assertum eonfutemus.' 



