4S 



cesses so worn off as to present, to those pre- 

 disposed to adopt the idea, some resemblance, in 

 the superficial Imesy to the teeth of the African 

 Elephant; but no one could look with ^7?/)' de- 

 gree of attention at any tooth of this animal, 

 without discovering that the enarnel absolutely 

 covers the whole upper surface, except where 

 it is worn off *, and that it never penetrates 

 to the interior of the tooth -j-. 



* The enamel In the Elephant's teeth never wears off, it 

 only wears down. 



t This incorrect observation, of some teeth of the Mam- 

 moth, has induced several anatomists to class this animal as 

 a species of Elephant, more analagous to the African than 

 the Asiatic. Any conclusions from so false an observation 

 would be of no consequence, if they were not given by some 

 of the first characters. Among others, Camper, in his 

 elegant work on the anatomy of the Elephant, page 24, 

 when he speaks of the fossil bones from the Ohio, which, 

 on the authority (in this instance incorrect) of the celebiated 

 CuviER, he classes as a fourth species of Elephant, says 

 thus: — " 4. The American Elephant (so called by Pennant) 

 with bones considerably more bulky than the former (mean- 

 ing the Siberean bones), with a lengthened and prodigiously 

 heavy head and long tusks : his grinders, more numerous, are 

 composed of three or four plates (plaques) first crowned with 

 tubercles, and then marked with a double leaf of clover 

 (marquees d'une double fcuille de trejle). This prolongation 



