400 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



The following tab'le exhibits the dimensions and other precise 

 characters of the three teeth : 



Total length 



Length of grinding surface 



Projection posteriorly beyond the grinding 



surface 



Whole number of plates 



Number of plates on the grinding surface. 

 Mean distance of plates on grinding surface 



Greatest width of crown 



Average thickness of plates 



Greatest height when resting on crown. 

 Ratio of length and breadth of tooth.. „ 



No. 1. j No. 2 

 Alabama:Michigan 



11 in* 

 9 " 



1.25 in. 



28 " 



21f " 



0.43 " 



4 " 



0.20 " 



8.50 " 



2.75 •' 



16.25 in. 

 10.50 " 



0.75. " 



119 " 



19 " 



JO 55 " 



3.64 " 



|0.33 " 



'6.50 " 



3.09 " 



No. 3. 

 C. W. 



7 in. 

 5 " 



2 " 

 19 " 

 15 " 

 0.33 in. 

 2.50 " 

 0.20 " 

 4.75 " 

 2.80 " 



♦Allowing one inch for apparent loss, 

 f Allowing two plates for portion lost. 



The foregoing- examination of three elephantine molars in my 

 possession shows that they probably agree sufficiently well to 

 belong to one species. The mean distance of the plates conforms 

 also with the data which you have given in the Canadian Natu- 

 ralist, and seems, as you conclude to point to a distinction between 

 Elephas primigenius and the remains commonly found in the 

 United States and Canada West. The Michigan tooth presents the 

 most marked peculiarities, and these may be enumerated as follows : 

 1 . A greater mean distance of the plates. 



The oblique position of the middle and anterior plates. 

 A remarkable twisting of the grinding surface. 

 A smaller relative thickness. 



A different disposition of the dentine in the deeper or al- 

 veolar portion of the tooth, especially as contrasted with the Cana- 

 dian molar. 



Very truly yours, 



A. Winchell. 

 E. Billings, F. G. S. 



Paleontologist, &c, &c, 



Montreal, C. E. 



2. 

 3. 

 4. 



5: 



