ON THB BONES OF THE MASTODON. 347 



The riletacarpian of the annular (pi. 25, fig. 7), though of equal 

 length, is broader by a third than in the elephant. The surface, which 

 corresponds with the cuneiforme, is divided into two planes by a salient 

 edge. 



This difference has become the more perceptible, as I have seen in 

 juxtaposition with this metacarpal of the annular of a mastodon, 

 another of a fossil elephant, found in the same place, and almost 

 similar in every respect to that of the Indian elephant. 



The astragalus sent by Mr. Jefferson (pi. 25, fig. 8), is more com- 

 pressed than that of the elephant; its tibial surface is more rectan- 

 gular, somewhat narrower in proportion : that part of it which ap- 

 proaches to the scaphoid is much shorter. In all these particulars, 

 it bears so strong a resemblance to the fossil elephant of Tuscany, 

 (pi. 7, fig. 2, f), that I should feel inclined to doubt of itsbelonging to 

 a mastodon, if a calcaneum, sent at the same time, and evidently cor- 

 responding with the astragalus, did not offer raor^e strongly defined, 

 and, at the same time, analogous differences. 



This calcaneum (pi. 25, fig. 9) is thicker and shorter : the part de- 

 scending towards the cuboid is much shorter ; its fibular surface rises 

 much higher along the internal surface of the astragalus. The latter 

 approaches the external, and touches it towards the top. The surface 

 joining the scaphoid, placed beneath the internal edges of the internal 

 astragalion is narrower and almost round. 



The scaphoids of the tarsus (fig. 10) is thinner in proportion to 

 its breadth : like all the other bones, it is more compressed. I have 

 not seen either the cuboid or the cuneiforme of the tarsus in a sufficient 

 state of preservation to enable me to describe them. 



The bones of the metatarsus are even thicker and shorter in pro- 

 portion to those of the elephant, than are the bones of the me- 

 tacarpus. 



The second (pi. 25, fig. 11), besides its thickness, is still further 

 distinguished from that of the elephant, by the articulation «f the first 

 bone, and coincides with the whole length of that corresponding with 

 the first cuneiforme. 



The third bone (pi. 25, fig. 12), is less thick in proportion to its 

 length ; its surfaces differ but slightly from those of the elephant. 

 The only difference is, that the two laterals are larger, particularly 

 that which corresponds with the fourth. 



The fourth bone (pi. 25, fig. 13), has its lateral surface larger; 

 besides, there is a well-defined edge between the parts of its cuboldian 

 surface. It appears to touch- the fifth very slightly. 



The same relative thickness obtains in the phalanges. 



1 1 . General Resume. 



The result of this description is — that the great mastodon bore a 

 strong resemblance to the elephant, both in its tusks and its whole 

 osteology, except the jaw-teeth ; that, in all probability, it had 

 a trunk ; that its height did not surpass that of the elephant ; but 

 that it was a little longer, with limbs a little thicker, and a more 

 contracted belly ; that, spite of all these resemblances, the peculiar 



