288 ON THE FOSSIL, BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADIUJPEDS. 



and was found some years since in the forest of Bondy, with another 

 similar to it. 



Fig. 2 Is the molar of a very young elephant ; a real sucking molar. 

 It was found at Fovent. 



Fig. 3 Is the upper molar of a middle-aged elephant of Siberia. It 

 is No. mxxii of Daubenton. 



Fig. 4 Is one of the second molares of a young elephant. It was 

 found in the neighbourhood of Toulouse. 



Fig. 5 Is the lower molar of an elephant, worn down one half. 



The very small tooth of Tuscany, represented in Jig. 4, pi. 15, and 

 the teeth of adults still adhering to the upper jaws,/*/. 10, figs. 3 and 

 4, and to the lower jaws, pi. 1 1 , figs. 4 and 5, and pi. 14, Jig. 1 , con- 

 firm this general resemblance. 



This is what has led Pallas, and almost all those who have come 

 after him, to assert, that the fossil is identical with the Asiatic ele- 

 phant. 



But is this resemblance complete ? Formerly I did not question it* ; 

 latterly I have hesitated a little about supporting an assertion which 

 might appear hazardous, and about which the observations of my late 

 learned friend Adrien Camper had inspired me with some doubts f. 

 Let us examine the matter anew, fairly and impartially. 



In the first place, then, it is certain that the number of plates, con- 

 sidered by itself alone, cannot give us good characteristics, as it is 

 subject to vary, according to the age of the animal and the position 

 of its tooth, from four to twenty-three or twenty-four. 



But suppose we take the number of plates of teeth of equal length, 

 will not this furnish us with a sufficient criterion ? This is the ob- 

 servation I have made on a great number of Indian and fossil teeth, 

 and I have almost invariably found the plates of the latter more deli- 

 cate, and consequently more numerous, in the same space. 



I have drawn up a table of them, which I have annexed to the end 

 of this article. We shall there see — 



1st. That the plates vary in thickness in the different individuals of 

 each species. 



2dly. That there is, as we have above remarked, a relation between 

 this thickness and the number of plates ; that is to say, that the more 

 plates there are in a tooth, the thicker is each plate, taken separately. 



3rdly. That, nevertheless, in comparing with each other, teeth of the 

 same number of plates, we find that these plates almost invariably 

 occupy a less space in the fossil teeth ; and this difference goes a great 

 way in certain specimens, and so much farther where the number of 

 plates is great. 



Thus, when M. Camper meets my reasonings by displaying a tooth 

 of a live elephant with thin plates, and another with thick plates, it is 

 because the first he has given, pi. 19, fig. 2, in his work, has but 

 twelve plates, and is that of a very young elephant, and the other, repre- 

 sented infig. 6, as well as that of pi. 13, figs. 4 and 5, has twenty -three,. 



* Memoirs of the Institute, Class of Mathematics and Physics, vol. ii, p. 15. 

 t Anatomical Description of the Elephant, in fol.., p. 19- 



