FALCONER MASTODON AND ELEPHANT. 257 



priscus, under the -synonymy of E. primigen'ms*. Pictet doubts 

 the veritable fossil nature of the specimens upon which E. priscus 

 was founded ; the other nominal species he considers as not esta- 

 blished on sufficient grounds, and he would continue them all, in- 

 clusive of E, meridionalis, under the common designation of E. pri- 

 migenius. He questions the occiuTence of Elephant-remains in the 

 Phocene period, leaning to the opinion of Gervais, that the asserted 

 instances should be referred to the genus Mastodonf. 



The restriction of the European fossil Elephants to a single 

 species was first called in question by Nesti, as far back as 1808, 

 upon fossil remains discovered in the Val d'Arno, for which he pro- 

 posed two new designations i". Nesti was in possession of the most 

 ample materials for the establishment of one of these, E. meridio- 

 nalis ; but, unfortunately for science, he described the lower jaw of 

 Mastodon (Tetralophodon) Arvernensis as that of an Elephant, and 

 abandoned the characters furnished by the molar teeth as untrust- 

 worthy and incertain ; and his Elephas meridionalis and E. minutus 

 succumbed to a criticism by Cuvier. The former was. revived by 

 Croizet and Jobert in 1828, for remains found in the Velay§ under 

 the name oi Elephant de Malbattu : it has been admitted by Christol|| 

 and Pom el 51 for others from Auvergne and Montpellier ; and by 

 Morren, in his account of the Elephant-remains occurring in the 

 fossil state in Belgium**, In 1847 it Vv'as applied, in the ' Eauna 

 Antiqua Sivalensis,' to remains from the Norwich Crag and lignite- 

 bed, 



Goldfuss, in 1821, proposed the name of Elephas priscus for some 

 supposed fossil molar teeth, bearing a strong resemblance to the 

 molars of the existing African Elephant. Cuvier disputed their au- 

 thenticity as real fossils ; and it is not a little curious that Goldfuss 

 would appear in this case to have founded a veritable species 

 upon spurious materials. I detected in the British Museum 

 molars of indubitable fossil origin from the brick-earth deposit of 

 Gray's Thurrock, in the valley of the Thames, presenting characters 

 closely resembling Goldfuss's species, and figures of them were pub- 

 Ushedft under the name of E. priscus in 1847. Pomel applies the 

 name to some fossil molars described by Laizer in Auvergne. 



Eischer de Waldheim, Eichwald, and Morren together have pro- 

 posed eight nominal species as distinct from E. primigenius ; but 



* "Die Anzahl der fossilen Arten mag sicli, ausser 2 bis 3 dstinclischen am 

 Fusse des Himalm/ah geiunden, und abgesehen von E. priscus, liber den wir nicht 

 entscheiden wollen, auf eine bis hochstens zwei beschranken, womit aueh die 

 americanische dickplattige Form, E. Americanus, Leidy, iibereinzustimmen 

 scheint." — Bronn, Lethiea geognost. (1856) edit. 3, Band iii. p. 814. 



t Pictet, Paleontologie, 1853, torn. i. p. 284. 



:J: Annali del Museo di Firenze, torn, i., " Di alcune ossa fossili de' Mam- 

 miferi che s'incontrano nel Val d'Arno." 



§ Oss. Foss. du Puy-de-D6me, p. 123-132. 



II Ann. des Sci. Nat. 1835, 2''"= ser. Zool. tom. iv. p. 197. 



^[ Catal. Method, et Descript. 1854, p. 74. 



** Memoire sur les Ossemens fossiles d'Elepbans trouves en Belgique, 

 1834, p. 13. 



ft JFauna Antiqua Sivalensis, pi. 14. figs. 6 & 7. 



t2 



