105 



BEITISH AND EUROPEAN FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 



which he characterized, the distinctive marks of the Mam- 

 moth from the existing Indian Elephant. 



Failing the teeth, Nesti drew his specific distinctions from 

 the form of the cranium and lower jaw. Ample evidence is 

 afforded by them for establishing E. meridionalis as an inde- 

 pendent form. 



It would be both tedious and beside the scope of this 

 essay to detail the various opinions that have been expressed 

 by different palaeontologists respecting E. meridionalis. They 

 will be found embodied in systematic works upon the science ; 

 and, on the present occasion, I shall confine myself to such 

 as have had most influence, either in throwing light upon 

 the characters of the species or in discrediting it. 



Cuvier rested the specific distinction of the molars of the 

 Mammoth upon three characters, namely, the great width of 

 the crown, the attenuation of the plates, and the absence or 

 small amount of crimping in the edges of the enamel. He 

 admits that he had observed some notable exceptions as re- 

 gards the two last. The first example that he cites is the 

 ' dent de Porentrui,' from the valley of the Rhine, above Stras- 

 burg, which is remarkable for a great amount of plaiting in 

 the enamel-plates. This specimen, however, is not fossil, but 

 belongs to the existing Elephant. 1 The only other exceptions 

 cited are three Italian specimens from Romagnano, Monte 

 Yerde, and the Val d'Arno, in all of which the plates are very 

 thick, and which in reality belong to E. meridionalis. No 

 exceptional illustration is adduced from Siberia, or any other 

 northern locality, where the true Mammoth prevails. It is 

 implied that they constantly present attenuated and un- 

 crimped plates. Cuvier therefore supposed the two last cha- 

 racters to be inconstant, and adhered to the great width of 

 the crown, which, however, is common to the Mammoth and 

 to E. meridionalis. It is obvious that the prepossession in his 

 mind in favour of a single European fossil species of Ele- 

 phant, which is manifest throughout the ' Ossemens Fossiles,' 

 had unconsciously led the great anatomist to undervalue the 

 very characters which he was the first to inculcate. 



The Abbe Croizet, to whom palaeontology is indebted for 

 so much valuable research on the fossil fauna of Velay, was 

 the first who had the courage to question the decision of 

 Cuvier against E. meridionalis. In his work upon Puy-de- 

 Dome, he has figured and described a fragment of an upper 

 (?) molar (lower left of Croizet and Jobert) discovered at 

 Malbattu. It is a good deal mutilated, and the figure is not 



1 ' It is a lower left, and beyond all 

 question not fossil, but of the existing 

 Indian Elephant. This was first pointed 



out to me by M. Lartet.' — Note by Dr. 

 f.— [Ed.] 



