26o 
" tended by Falconer, who referred to Loxodon, besides E. africanus " 
" (and E. prisctis), also E. planifrons and E. mcridionalis, as well as " 
" his ' E. Dieliicnsis,' and to Elephas {Enc/cp/ias, Falc.) all other forms. " 
" In his classification Falconer has evidently laid too much stress upon" 
" the number of lamella;, while he did not sufficiently value other " 
"essential characteristics; thus typical molars o{ E. }/ic7'idionalisha.vQ" 
" nothing' in common with those of E. africanus except the small " 
" number of lamellae, while the former species is far removed from the " 
"latter in the form of the crown and in the pattern of the lamella;. 
" Estimating all the essential relations of the teeth at their value, we " 
"reach the following subgeneric division of the elephants in the" 
" broader sense : — 
"I. Archidiscodonta. Type: E. nieridionalis. Transition" 
" to the following group formed by E. planifrons. " 
" Tapinodiscal, laticoronate, short and pachyganal " 
"molars. Parsilamellate. (Mostly only 15 lamellae " 
" in M. 3.) 
"'Wa. Loxo-(disco-)donta. Type: E. africanus (and E." 
priscus). Transition to the following group " 
" formed by E. antiqims. Hypselodiscal, angusti- " 
" coronate molars. 
" II/a Polvdiscodonta. Type: E. primigenins. Transitions" 
" to the preceding group in E. indicjts and E. " 
" namadictis. Hypselodiscal, laticoronate, long, " 
" endioganal molars. Densilamellate. (Mostly" 
"more than 20 lamellre in M. 3.)" (Pohlig, 1888, 
PP- i35-'38.). 
The most obvious object of comparison with E. zulu is E. afri- 
camis, and it will therefore be useful to quote certain of Pohlig's 
remarks upon the latter species. "Among all normally developed " 
" elephants E. africanus has relatively the smallest molars and also the " 
" minimal number of lamellae; the maximum, which is rarely attained, " 
" is XI IX * (x 1 3x .'^ according to Leith Adams). . . . The small size of " 
" the cheek-teeth, especially in proportion to the gigantic size attained " 
" by E. africamLS, considerably surpassing that of E. indicns, is one of" 
" the most noteworthy peculiarities of the species. In addition should " 
" be mentioned the extreme loxodontism, which is approximated by " 
E. antiqjt2Ls only in individual cases, and the narrow form of the" 
"crowns. . . . The small size, in general, and especially the narrow-" 
" ness of the recent elephants' molars, in comparison with those of all " 
"the fossil species (even E. antiguus included) should be particularly" 
" noted ; molars of E. indic?is or E. africanus of more than "086 m. " 
" width are not known, even in the most gigantic skulls " (Pohlig, 
1888, pp. 242-243). 
1 urning now to the examination of the fossil teeth, one is imme- 
diately struck by the fact that they represent a very similar type to 
those o{ E. {L.) africanus, yet differing in such a way as immediately 
This means 1 1 fully formed plates with a talon-like, partially formed lamella at 
each end of the tooth. 
