86 BRITISH FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 



largest of any equivalent milk-molar of the Asiatic Elephant which has come under my 

 notice ; indeed, the breadth somewhat exceeds that of the largest 1 have examined, and is, 

 therefore, in keeping with the relatively greater breadth of the Mammoth tooth. The 

 plates are thin as compared with those of the upper ante-penultimate of E. antiquus 

 (PI. XII, fig. 3 a), but are indistinguishable in that respect from specimens of 

 E. Asiaticus. 



The same tooth in E. Africanus, although generally as large, and frequently even 

 larger, is, like that of E. meridionalis, easily distinguished from the Mammoth's by the 

 thick massive plates. The ridge-formula, however, of a? 4 w, as I have shown at p. 11 of 

 my Monograph on E. antiquus, is found not unfrequently in upper and lower molars 

 of the African. 



With reference to the aw^'e-penultimate milk-molar in E. antiquus, the above is a very 

 suggestive specimen, and is now in the Museum of Practical Geology, Jermyn Street. It 

 was presented to the Collection by the late Dr. Cotton, and is shown in PI. XII, fig. 3, for 

 the purpose of still further elucidating the dental succession of this species. The frag- 

 ment belongs to a maxilla, and is from Ilford ; it shows the ante-penultimate and 

 penultimate milk-molars of E. antiquus. The former (fig. 3 a) contains x 2 x m o, 

 space of 0'9X0'7 inch, while the latter (fig. 3) holds w 5 x in 2*5 inches. The thick- 

 ness of the plates and crimping of the machserides of the disks are sufficiently charac- 

 teristic of E. antiquus, which was contemporary with the small variety of the Mammoth 

 during the period of the deposition of the brick-earths of Ilford; and, although all the 

 numerous evidences from this locality show that the latter greatly predominated, it is clear 

 that E. antiquus was also not uncommon, and, as regards size, was decidedly the larger 

 and stouter of the two species. 



A fragment of the left ramus of a mandible from Ilford is represented by specimen 

 No. 21,311 in the British Museum, and is shown half natural size, PI. X, fig. 2. It 

 displays the double fang-pits of an ante-penultimate milk-molar, with a large socket 

 posteriorly for the successional tooth. This fragment, when compared with that of 

 E. antiquus, PI. V, fig. 2, of my Monograph, shows a relatively broader ramus, and a 

 wider and shorter socket for the penultimate. On these grounds it seems to me, taking 

 into consideration that both fragments represent the same stage of growth, that PI. X, 

 fig. 2, belongs to the Mammoth. 



Dr. Ealconer refers to the fragment of a mandible, No. 33,403, in the Layton Collec- 

 tion in the British Museum, containing " the sockets of the two anterior milk-molars."^ 

 It is clearly a dredged specimen from the Norfolk Coast, and appears to me to 

 represent a more advanced stage of growth than the preceding, the sockets referred to 

 being of the last and penultimate milk-teeth. This specimen is not, to my mind, 

 diagnostic of any one species in particular, in consequence of being a mere fragment. 



A suggestive mandible, No. 37, of the Ilford Catalogue, is shown in Plate X, 



1 'Pal. Mem.,' vol. ii, p. IGl. 



