78 BRITISH POSSIL ELEPHANTS. 



members of the dental series, the range of variabiUty bemg often so great that the average 

 of a given number of specimens is no reliable exponent of the numbers and variations to 

 which the tooth is subject. 



A similar conclusion was come to by me with reference to the dental series of 

 E. antiquus ; and therefore, as in the latter case, I am compelled to believe that the only 

 true method of expressing the ridge-formula of elephantine molars is by giving the mini- 

 mum, mean, and maximum number of ridges of each member of the dental series. 



Therefore, Dr. Falconer's method of demonstrating the ridge- formulae of his sub-genus 

 Euelephas by progressive increments of 4, or anisomerous ciphers, seems to me both 

 arbitrary and dogmatical. It is, in fact, too absolute a method, and is at variance with 

 the laws of mutability of species, which advancing knowledge shows is far greater than 

 has been supposed. 



In the Synoptical Table of the S})ccies of Mastodon and Elephant Dr. Falconer 

 distinguishes the worn crowns of molars of E. primigenius from the teeth of all other 

 known living or extinct species thus : — " Colliculi confertissimi, adamante valde attenuato, 

 machceridibus vix undulatis."^ 



Cuvier had previously established broad marks of distinction between the molar of 

 the Mammoth and that of the Asiatic Elephant, with whose skeleton generally he had 

 noted certain well-marked affinities. But although more experienced than, perhaps, any 

 of his contemporaries and predecessors, as far as the manipulation of remains of extinct 

 Elephants was concerned, he applied the specific name of Elephas primigenius to all the 

 fossil Elephant remains discovered in his time, and previously, in Europe, Arctic Asia, 

 and North America. It is but justice, however, to his great name, and also to the credit 

 of several of his successors, to remember that the light which shone dimly on them by 

 reason of scanty data shines now brightly on account of the enormous amount of 

 materials accumulated even since the publication of the ' British Fossil Mammals.' 



The molar crown of the Mammoth is distinguishable from that of other and allied 

 species by the — 1, great breadth of the crown as compared with the length; 2, the 

 narrowness of the ridges ; 3, the crowding or close approximation of the ridges ; 4, the 

 tenuity of the enamel; 5, the absence of crimping.^ 



These characters combined suffice to distinguish the grinder from that of its near 

 allies, such as of the E. Asiaiicus, E. autiquus, and E. meridionalis. 



With reference to (1) the great breadth of the crown. This character, although also 

 present in E. meridionalu, is distinctive of the Mammoth as compared with the other two 

 species, to which may be added the Elephas Columbi, with whose remains it is said to 



1 ' Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. Lond.,' vol. xiii, p. 319 ; also ' Pal. Mem.,' vol. ii, p. 14. As in the case 

 of Elephas aniiquus, I shall refer to these essays in his Memoirs, for the reason that they are published 

 together, and are, therefore, more convenient for reference. 



2 I have adopted the same terms used in my Monograph on Elephas antiquus. All enamelled 

 laminee, whether plates or talons, are indiscriminately named ridges. A colliculus is an unworn ridge. 

 The letter x stands for talon as opposed to jdate. 



