ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF THE ELEPHANT, 307 



This had been annouHced l:y M. Camper, in his Anatomical De- 

 scription of the Elephant, page 20 ; and he has since pointed it out to 

 me at greater length, in two letters addressed to me on this subject. 

 Notwithstanding this individual variation, the teeth of this jaw have 

 the same proj^ortions as those of the living species. While giving me 

 these descriptions, M. Camper fuilher observed, that the fossil jaw, 

 like all others of this species, presents sides more protuberant' and 

 knotted than those of the Indian species. 



A stronger objection against the general nature of this difference 

 might have been found in the fossil javv^, represented and described by 

 M. Neste, in the Annals of the Museum of Florence, vol. i, p. 9, and 

 plate 1 , figs. 1 and 2 , of which I have given a copy, plate 15, figs. 5 and 6 ; 

 but this jaw, besides being knobbed on the side more than that of any 

 other known elephant, has a longer and more curved beak. This beak, 

 instead of terminating in a point in front, spreads Avider there than at 

 it centre : the holes for the issue of the under maxillary nerve, are one 

 behind the other, as in those of the mastodon, and not one above the 

 other, as in the Indian and fossil elephant. It would indicate a species 

 essentially different from all the others, if it belonged to the elephant ; 

 but as the teeth have fallen out, it is impossible to prove that it belonged 

 to that species ; nay, more, from a comparison which I have made be- 

 tween it and some fragments of the jaw-s of mastodons with narrow 

 teeth, I have no doubt but that the jaw in question must be referred to 

 that species, as I shall hereafter have occasion to show ; consequently, 

 all the arguments sought to be deduced from it against the generality of 

 the characteristic which I ascribe to the lower jaw of the elephant, must 

 fall to the ground. 



5. Comparison behveen the other Fossil Bones. 

 I. Bones of the Spine. 



I have had but tliree of this description sufficiently perfect. 



The fine fossil atlas which I purchased in Tuscany, at Incisa in the 

 valley of the Arno, is represented plate 17, figures 3 and 4. Leaving' 

 out of consideration its length, which equals 0,507, from, one apophy- 

 sis to the other, it differs but little from that of the Indian elephant : 

 it is merely somewhat thicker : it indicates an individual twelve and a 

 half feet in height. 



I have seen another vertebra brought from Siberia by the late M. 

 Macquart, professor of medicine at Strasbourg, preserved in the 

 Museum of the Board of Mines : it is the fourth cervical. I find 

 its bulk a little more delicate in proportion than in the living sub- 

 ject, but it belonged to a young subject, which could not have been more 

 than seven feet high ; and as its transverse apophyses have been de- 

 stroyed, it will not admit of an accurate comparison. I give this 

 specimen, reduced to a sixth of its natural size, plate 11, fig, 14. 



A third vertebra which has come under my observation, is a lumbar 

 found on the banks of the Po, and presented to the Museum by the late 

 M. Faujas. It is the second lumbar : it belonged to a subject ten 

 feet and a half high ; and such of its parts as have remained entire do 

 not present us with any perceivable difference when compared with 

 those of the living animal. I give a drawing of it, plate 16, figs. 26 

 and 27. 



