420 PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY. [Apr, 13, 
of a longitudinal line bisecting the tooth into an outer and an inner 
division*, and from the ridges “being a little conyex in front and 
concave behind, determining a similar form to the valley between 
them’, that the milk-tooth with sinuously disposed ridges and 
valleys cannot belong to that species. 
I note, however, in the upper molars of the Llephas (Stegodon) 
bombifrons, Fr., a tendency to sinuosity in the transverse course of 
the ridges, and an indication of a median constriction in some of 
them, which comes nearer to the character of the Chinese tooth. 
Unfortunately the homologue of that tooth has not been obtained of 
the EH. bombifrons. It is very significant of the tact of discerning 
differential characters so happily possessed by our late distinguished 
fellow labourer, that in the figures (5 and 6) which he has given of 
two fragments of large upper molars with the above characters some- 
what more marked, in plate 29 A of the‘ Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis,’ 
illustrative of his Elephas bombifrons, he should have appended to 
his ascription of those fragments to that species a note of interro- 
gation, and should have added in the posthumous account given in 
the ‘ Paleontological Memoirs’ the toilowing expression of mature 
and probably final opinion :—‘‘ Doubtful what figures 5 and 6 are” 
(vol. 1. p. 460). 
Now, after a close comparison of my Chinese deciduous molar 
with every specimen in the British Museum likely to elucidate its 
specific character (and most have been beautifully figured, though, 
unfortunately, with much reduetion of size, in the master-work 
above quoted, ‘Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis’), and with specimens 
and figures of specimens in other collections, there is none more 
likely to belong to the same species of Elephas or Mastodon or 
Stegodon than the fragment of upper molar from the Siwalik ter- 
tiaries, of the specific nature of which Falconer was doubtful. I 
conclude, therefore, that the best service to science will be to record 
the characters, with figures of the natural size, of the second upper 
grinder, d 3, right side, of the proboscidian from Shanghai, as of a 
Stegodon sinensis, to which, with probability, though not with cer- 
tainty, the fragments of the large Stegodon, of a species to Falconer 
unknown, from the Siwalik tertiaries may also belong. 
Howsoever this may prove, it is acceptable to find the results of 
comparisons converging and concurring in approximating the Chinese 
Proboscidian most nearly to those extinct forms which have laid 
their bones and teeth in localities geographically nearest to the 
grave of the Stegodon sinensis. 
I have not deemed it expedient to slice a unique tooth for mi- 
croscopical scrutiny ; but there is no more appearance of cement in 
the coronal interspaces of the present Chinese fossil molar than in 
those of the more Mastodontal forms of Proboscidia. This, however, 
would not exclude the Mastodon sinensis from the section of Pro- 
3 Falconer, ‘ Palezontological Memoirs,’ vol. i. p. 118. 
+ Ibid. p. 114. Both these characters are well shown in the upper (first true) 
molar of Clift?s Mastodon elephantoides = Stegodon Cliftii, Fr., loc. cit. pl. 39. 
fig. 6. 
