280 PKOCEEWNOS OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIEIT, 



tions, that he was unable to draw a well-defined line between the 

 thick-plated and thin-plated varieties. The consideration of the 

 grounds upon which this opinion was founded will faU more pro- 

 perly into the discussion on the fossil species of Euelephas. In 

 regard to E. meridionalis, he alleges that the variety of molar 

 {i. e. thick-plated) on which this proposed species is founded occurs 

 not only in England, but in Siberia and as far north as Escholtz 

 Bay ; and, in proof, he appeals to the specimens described by Buck- 

 land in the appendix to the ' Voyage of the Blossom.' Professor 

 Owen refers to this thick-plated variety of the Mammoth certain 

 British molars, which will be noticed in the sequel, as belonging to 

 E. (Loxod.) meridionalis, I may remark that the conclusions to 

 which I have been led on all the points involved in the question of 

 distinct species or varieties in the European fossil Elephants are 

 widely different from those set forth in the ' Report to the British 

 Association ' and in the ' British Eossil Mammalia.' 



Early in 1844, my attention was directed to the European fossil 

 Elephants as subjects of comparison with the Indian fossO. species 

 from the Sewalik Hills. I had satisfied myself, upon the indis- 

 putable evidence of entire crania and weU-pronounced dental dis- 

 tinctions, that, exclusive of the Stegodons, there were three Indian 

 fossil species of Elephas, two from the miocene Sewalik deposits, 

 namely, E. {Euelephas) Hysudricus and E. {Loxodon) planifrons, 

 and one from the pliocene beds of the Nerbudda, E. {Euelephas) 

 Mimadicus, which were as distinct as the two existing species are 

 from each other. On comparing them with British specimens, I 

 found that there was one series among the latter which resembled 

 the molars of E. (Loxod.) planifrons, and that they were chiefly 

 derived from the " Norwich Crag " or its vicinity ; while another 

 series, found in vast abundance on the " Oyster-bed " and in other 

 localities along the Norfolk coast and elsewhere in England, dif- 

 fered constantly from characteristic specimens of the Mammoth of 

 the superficial glacial deposits, and were closely allied to E. {Euele- 

 phas) Namadicus from the Nerbudda. I was in this manner con- 

 vinced that there were two British fossil sj)ecies, besides E. primi- 

 genius and E. {Loxodon) priscus. The prevailing opinion, at that 

 time, among the best geological authorities in England, was that 

 the Crag deposits were either of a miocene or very old pliocene 

 age. On referring to the description and figures given by Nesti, 

 Croizet and Jobert, and by Cuvier, of molars attributed to E. meri- 

 dionalis, I found that they were so indecisive, either from their 

 reduced scale or their imperfect execution, that it was impossible 

 to identify the British specimens satisfactorily by them ; and in 

 the metropolitan collections I could discover no good series of Val 

 d'Arno specimens to assist me. In consequence, I came to the con- 

 clusion, but hastily as it proved, that the fossil species from the Nor- 

 folk coast and fluviatile beds of the Thames valley was the same 

 as the extinct Elephant of the Val d'Arno ; and the figures illustra- 

 tive of it in the * Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis ' were pubKshed under 

 the name of E. meridionalis, while those from the '' Crag " and 



