21G ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS. 



These latter alveoli are a little thinner, hut not at all in the proportion 

 of the tusks themselves. What is wanting to the thickness of the 

 tusks is compensated by a greater thickness in the osseous substance 

 of the alveolus. The reason is, that the alveolus, serving as a base, 

 and place of attachment to the muscles of the trunk, could not 

 shorten as much as the tusk, without the trunk losing the thickness 

 and strength which are necessary to it. 



Finally, there is a little variety in the length of the alveoli, and 

 what is still very remarkable, without any relation to that of the tusks. 

 Our large mooknuh skeleton has them larger than our two dauntelah, 

 though its tusks are the smallest of all. 



The longest alveoli which I have yet seen, are those of the mooknah 

 (pl.\B,fig.2>); but a very old dauntlelah with very thick and blunt 

 tusks, the skull of which, preserved in the Museum of the India Com- 

 pany in London, was sketched by M. Clift, and is engraved pi. 18, 

 fig. 4. is, of all the skulls I have seen, that of which the alveoli are 

 shortest in proportion. 



Now, this difference in length does not reach two inches ; it could 

 not be considerable without the organization of the trunk essentially 

 changing, because the muscles of its lower part are inserted under the 

 loiver edge of the alveoli of the tusks, and those of the upper part are 

 inserted in the forehead above the bones of the nose. The base of 

 the trunk has then necessarily in vertical diameter the distance be- 

 tween these two points ; and if the alveoli were continued a certain 

 way beyond that, the trunk would acquire a monstrous size. 



This matter is very important to remark, because it furnishes the 

 most distinctive character of the fossil elephant. 



If we compare the small number of figures of elephants' skulls, 

 found in the works of naturalists, I do not think we discover therein 

 more marked differences than those I have stated. 



Indeed,: the late Mr. Faujas supposed a difference between the 

 skulls of males and females, of which I have made no mention; but 

 he was deceived by mere external appearances. 



Our male mooknah of Ceylon, carried at the root of the trunk a 

 very perceptible prominence, which was not in the female. M. Faujas, 

 imagining that this prominence depended on the bony parts, had these 

 two heads represented in pi. 12, of his Essay on Geology .■ " In order," 

 says he, p. 238, "to avoid an error in the case, where one might find, 

 by lucky chance, fossil heads of male and female elephants, because 

 being aware of the fact, one would not be tempted to make two dif- 

 ferent species of them." 



But dissection shewed that this projection was merely produced by 

 two cartilages covering the entrance of the canals of the trunk into 

 the bony nares. 



These cartilages were a little more bunched out in this male than in 

 the other individuals. 



This was not even a character common to all the males : the daun- 

 telah of Bengal which we then had, possessed it not. 



The same author gave to his figures tusks much larger than these 

 two individuals had them : "In order," says he, " to show to those who 



