ELEPHAS PRIMIGENIUS.— MILK MOLARS. 93 



variability in its ridge formula, which does not appear to exceed cV 6 x in either jaw. 

 The tooth altogether, like the succeeding, is relatively more massive and the enamel 

 thicker, and more wavey in outline than is ever seen in the Mammoth. 



The close affinities between the skull of the Asiatic Elephant and the Mammoth extends 

 also to the molars. Li the latter this is apparent as regards the ridge fornmla, which is 

 precisely the same in both, as also the attenuation of the plates to some extent,^ When the 

 molar crown of U. antiquus and E. mericUonalis were confounded with that of the Mammoth, 

 one was apt, from fragmentary specimens of the former resembling E. Asialicus, to 

 correlate the two more closely in their dentition, and even weather-stained molars of the 

 latter were not unfrequently mistaken for Mammoths' teeth .^ 



I am not aware that the teeth, or any portion of the skeleton of the youthful stages 

 of growth above described, have been found in either Scotland or Ireland. The penulti- 

 mate milk tooth is common in collections from the brick-earths of Ilford and 

 neighbouring localities, also in gravels and river deposits about Oxford. It has been 

 found, as just indicated, in the caverns of Devonshire and Mendip Hills, Somersetshire, 

 where, doubtless, as in similar situations, it represents the rcjectmenfa of numerous 

 victims of the great Carnivores. As to the specimens from the Norfolk Coast, the same 

 uncertainty as to their stratigraphical relations obtains as with other portions of the 

 skeleton of the Mammoth asserted to have been found in the Forest Bed. 



The Fourth or TJltimate MUh Molar. 



The last of the milk series is plentiful in collections. It invariably marks a rapid 

 increase in the growth of an Elephant, as revealed by the uuich larger sizes of the 

 incisors and molars in comparison with penultimate milk teeth. 



1 Falconer, in summing up the data regarding the ridge formula of the milk series in comparison 

 with the same teeth in the Indian Elephant, observes that the former is "liahle to the same variation as 

 regards the an^e-penultimate (the italics are mine) upper and lower as is met with in that species, namely, 

 the ridges varying from seven to eight," 'Pal. Mem.,' vol. ii, p. 163 ; see also 'Quart. Joiirn. Geol. Soc.,' 

 vol. xxi, p. 327. Clearly this " slip of the pen " refers to the third or penultimate, and not the second or 

 ante-penultimate. The mistake is apt, however, to mislead, and seems to me worth indicating. 



2 Among the very varied and very imperfectly named and classified proboscidean remains of 

 the 'Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis ' there are several figures referred by Dr. Falconer to E. planijrons 

 and E. Ibjsudricus, which might be most advantageously compared with the remains of the European 

 and living Elephants, but as this would imply a detailed acquaintance with all tlie vast and 

 heterogenous materials collected by Falconer, Cautly, and others, in the British Museum and elsewhere, an 

 undertaking the first, with his profound knowledge of the subject, seems to have shrank from entering 

 upon. I can, therefore, only indicate here a few of the more suggestive teeth and bones with which the 

 same parts of the Mammoth might be compared ; for example, the first and second milk molars of 

 E. j)lanifrons, erroneously named E. Ihjsudricus (see ' Pal. Mem.,' vol. i, p. 442, footnote ; pi. xiv, 

 fig. 10 ; and pi, vii, figs. 5 and 6), representing the same dental conditions in E. Hysudricus. 



13 



