208 ON THK FOSSIL EONE.S OF PACHYDKlUf ATOUS QUADRUPED?. 



Articlk IV. 



Of the different Species of Elephants at present existing ; their dis- 

 tinctive Characters, and the Varieties in each of them. 



1. — Difference of the Molar Teeth. 

 The molar teeth of the elephant of India, and of the elephant of 

 Africa, were for a considerable time possessed by individuals, and de- 

 scribed without any distinction, no comparison being made between 

 them, and no one perceiving that they did not resemble each other at 

 all. Thus the Royal Society of London, in 1715, procured some molar 

 teeth of the elephant of Africa, to serve as an object of comparison 

 with fossile molar teeth, which, as is known, resemble very much those 

 of the Indian elephant, nor did any one insist on a difference which 

 was quite palpable. 



The accurate and judicious Daubenton did not even remark it, and 

 neither Buffon nor Linnseus ever suspected that there could be more 

 than one species of elephant. We do not even perceive any traces of the 

 possibility of such a thing in Gmelin's edition of the Systema Nattira, 

 and in fact every thing found on the subject in the ancients, and in the 

 accounts of travellers, was vague, and could refer only to mere varieties. 



What follows is, for instance, what the ancients said on the differ- 

 ences of these elephants, and on their different degrees of fitness for 

 war. 



Polybius, book ii, c. 17, when speaking of the battle lost near 

 Raphia, by Antiochus the Great against Ptolomey IV. Philopator, the 

 year of Rome 535, 171 years before Christ, speaks of the superiority 

 of the elephants of India over those of Libya. The victory seemed at 

 first to incline to the side of Antiochus. The historian says on this 

 occasion, that "the elephants of Libya dread those of India, and can 

 neither look at them nor hear their cry, or rather, that it is the great- 

 size and strength of the latter which puts them to flight." 



Titus Livy, book xxxvii, c. 39, relates something similar on the 

 occasion of tlie battle of Magnesia, lost 27 years after, in the year of 

 Rome 562, bj^ the same Antiochus against the Romans, commanded 

 by Scipio Asiaticus, and under him by Cn. Doraitius, his lieutenant. 

 He says, that "the Roman general, who had but sixteen elephants, 

 placed them in the rear of the army, not only because they were not 

 able to resist those of the king in consequence of their small number, 

 the king having fifty-four, but also because being from Africa, they 

 would not have been able, even with equal numbers, to sustain the 

 combat against those from India, the latter race having at once more 

 courage, and a much superior size." 



Appian gives the same reason for this manoeuvre (deBellis Syriacis, 

 Amsterd. edition, 1760, 8vo. i. p. 172). According to him, " Domi- 

 tius, judging that the elephants which he had from Africa would be of 

 no use to him, because they were in smaller numbers, and less in size, 

 as being African (ol* hiQiuv), and because the small ones dread those 

 that are large, he placed them in the rear (^iiT\r,(jev oir,'<7a> Hi^-avlas) ." 



The inscription of Adulis, related by Cosmas, informs us that the 

 kings of Egypt procured the elephants, which they equipped for war. 



