164 BRITISH FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 



Mammoth's femur with the same parts in the Asiatic, and with a single example of the 

 African, I find that it is decidedly longer in the Asiatic than in the African, 708h, B. M., 

 and is shorter in the Mammoth than in either ; this obtains likewise in a superb speci- 

 men from Mundesley, Norfolk coast, which might be fairly referred to E. meridionalis. 

 This enormous bone, perfectly entire, is no less than 5 feet in length. It was discovered 

 within a few feet of a radius (3 feet 3 inches in length) and the enormous humerus, 

 No. 200 of the Gunn Collection, PL XVI, fig. 2, so as to render it probable that the 

 three bones belonged to the same individual. 



2. A rudimentary trochanter minor is often traceable in the Asiatic and Mammoth, 

 and is present in the above-named femur of E. meridionalis. This tuberosity is absent 

 in femur 708h of the African. The amount of obliquity of the head is not constant, 

 some specimens being much more inclined than others. 



3. The relation of the great trochanter to the head is seemingly subject to variability, 

 but in nearly all perfectly entire specimens of the Mammoth it is almost level with the 

 epiphysial junction of the latter (PI. XIX, fig. 7), whereas it is considerably below it in 

 the Asiatic. In this respect the Mundesley specimen resembles the Mammoth. 

 Unfortunately the part is not present in 708h, B. M., African; however, according to 

 Cuvier, the summit of the great trochanter is above the level of the apophysial union. 1 



4. The digital pit has a broader outer wall in the Mammoth and colossal Norfolk 

 femurs than in either of the recent species. 



5. The position of the nutrient foramen may be considered variable as to position, but 

 it is usually higher up in the Mammoth and Asiatic than in the African. It is undeter- 

 minable in the huge thigh-bones from the Norfolk coast, the opening having become 

 filled with matrix. 



Surfaces of the Shaft. 



Some stress has been put upon the four surfaces of the shaft as distinctive of species, 

 and, although always well marked, there is seemingly individual variability, not only in 

 respect to their evenness, but also the degrees of sharpness or rotundity of their margins. 

 Much, no doubt, depends on the size of individuals and the habits of the species. The 

 colossal Eorest-Bed Elephants were evidently less given to active muscular exertions as 

 compared with the feral individuals of recent species and the Mammoth, if we may judge 

 from the absence of pronounced articular surfaces and ridges for muscular attachments. 



I have compared many femora of Mammoths with the same bones of recent species 

 and a few examples of the colossal femora from East Anglia, with the following results 

 as regards their shaft. I have not seen an entire femur referable to E. anliquus. 



1. The anterior surface in the Mammoth is broad and flat in many (fig. 7), whilst 

 in other adult specimens it is narrow and round. It is remarkably broad in three 



1 ' Oss. Fossil.,' pi. ii, fig. 6. 



