176 BRITISH FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 



The tooth of the left side repeats these characters and dimensions, and has the lateral 

 and accessory digitations more pronounced. 



Lower molars. — The right lower molar (figs 1 and ]«) is considerably arcuated and 

 tapers towards the heel. It has been recently broken across at the fourteenth plate. 

 The crown holds so 20 w in 16 X 4 inches, 1 and as regards length is the largest molar of any 

 Elephant I have seen from British strata. The same great breadth is likewise exhibited. 

 There are thirteen discs in wear. 



The height of the thirteenth colline is also 7 inches, and there are five ridges in 4 inches, 

 with the same number of accessory digitations (8) on the inner side, as seen in the two 

 upper and the other left lower molar. 



The left molar appears to have an additional ridge and shows a formula of a? 21 w. 



Like the other, the anterior fang, which is broken off, was single and curved. 



The states of wear are unfortunately not sufficiently advanced to develop the discs to 

 their fullest extent, but they are sufficiently detrited to serve the purposes of comparison 

 with the crowns of the typical E. meridionalis as described by Ealconer. In the above 

 there is no inordinate excess of cement, so that the plates are closer together, the enamel 

 is fully crimped, and there is a decided disposition to central expansion and angulation 

 of the discs, which doubtless would appear pronounced in a lower transverse section of 

 the teeth. 



But the ridge formula of itself shows a difference of fully six ridges over the largest 

 tooth that can be unhesitatingly ascribed to E. meridionalis. Falconer has placed the 

 limit of the ridge formula in last molars in that species at a? 1 5 a? which he establishes 

 from an Italian specimen, 1 and, on what appears to me questionable grounds, considers 

 that the unusual number of ridges of this specimen may be owing to an abnormal 

 condition of the crown. But I cannot see that there is any reason to establish a limit 

 to a ridge formula, because the ordinary number of ridges seldom exceeds a? 13 x. This 

 view, so pertinaciously carried out by him, has been shown in the two previous parts of 

 this Monograph to admit of so many exceptions that I see no reason whatever to doubt 

 that the same may have obtained in E. meridionalis. The above addition to the dentition 

 of E. antiquns necessarily alters the ridge formula of E. antiquus given at page 47 as 

 follows : 



1. II. III. IV. V. VI. 



x2x — x3x x5x — xj x x8x — x 10 x x 9x — x 12 x x \2 x — x\3x x\5x — #20# 



x3x — ?6x — x8x x9x — a? 1 1 # xlla? — x 12a? xilx — x \3x x 16 x — x'lix 



1 In connection with a neighbouring locality, Mundesley, there is a description of a beach specimen 

 by Mr. Henry Baker in the ' Philosophical Transactions' of 1745. The molar referred to was 2 feet 11 

 inches in longitudinal circumference, linear length 15 inches, height 7 inches, and breadth 3 inches. It 

 contained sixteen ridges with enormous discs " furrowed like a millstone." From its height and ridge 

 formula this may have belonged to the broad-crowned variety of E. antiquus. A thigh-bone measured 

 6 feet in length. 



2 Op. cit., vol. ii, p. 117. 



