170 BRITISH FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 



Tarsus. 



Astragalus. — 1. The posterior border is more even, and the posterior internal angle less 

 pronounced in the African and the gigantic bones from East Anglia (PI. XIX, fig. 6) 

 than in the Mammoth (fig. 5) and Asiatic Elephant, which are similar in these respects. 



2. The tibial aspect is usually more concave from side to side in the Mammoth and 

 Asiatic than in the African and the enormous bones from the Eorest Bed. 



3. The navicular facet is seemingly not so convex in the Mammoth (fig. 5) and 

 E. meridionalis (fig. 0) as in the Asiatic, in which it is more prominent than in the 

 African ; the same appertains to the peroneal facet. 



4. The calcaneal facets present striking characters ; the dividing pit is much broader 

 in the Mammoth (fig. 5) and Asiatic than in the African and the large bones from the 

 Forest Bed (fig. 0), where the articular surfaces are always completely isolated by a deep 

 valley running tortuously across the surface. 



5. In E. meridionalis (fig. 6) the articular surfaces are more even than in the 

 Mammoth and the two recent species, the inner being crescentic and the outer quadri- 

 lateral, as seen in fig. 5, whilst in E. meridionalis (fig. G) the former is triangular and the 

 latter has the inner border more tortuous. 



The early ossification of the bones makes it difficult to pronounce on the age of an 

 individual. But generally a large astragal of the Mammoth may be about 5'5 inches in 

 the antero-posterior and lateral directions. The small specimen from Ilford (fig. 5) 

 has a tibial facet of only 4" 5 X 4*5 inches. 



Another astragal from the Shandon Cave, Waterford, belonging probably to the 

 individual which owned the axis, dorsal vertebra?, and other bones already noticed, is 

 preserved in the Museum of Science and Art, Dublin. It is 3*8 in the a. p. d. diameter 

 by 5*3 in width, the navicular facet is 4'6 in width by 2' 5 in height, whilst the calcaneal 

 (outer) is 3*2 X 2'3, and the inner 33 X 1*8 inches. These measurements, however, 

 refer to what must have been a rather small individual, as proven, also, by the teeth and 

 bones. 



Calcaneum. — The observations on this element of the hind foot of E. antiquus at 

 page 64 appears to hold good after a more extended examination of specimens. The 

 only point I observe deserving of further notice is that the upper surface of the heel, 

 generally narrow in E. Asiaticus and E. primigenius (Plate XIX, fig. 1), and round in 

 70Sh, E. Africanus, appears to be occasionally also round in E. antiquus, as seen in fig. 2. 

 It is invariably broad in E. meridionalis. The dorsal surface of the heel may therefore be 

 subject to individual variability, and can scarcely be accepted as diagnostic of species. 

 The E. Africanus shows a relatively larger cuboidal facet, and a more oblique peroneal, 

 and more even astragal facets than E. primigenius and E. Asiaticus. The points of 

 distinction between the calcaneum of E. primigenius and E. meridionalis will be noticed 

 in the sequel. 



