[ 44 1 
and whoever is of that opinion, will naturally fufped 
that the Siberian bones are of the fame kind. I ima- 
gine that it will be found, upon ffrid enquiry, to be 
lo. But, as I have not the neceffary materials for 
difcufTing this queffion at prefent, I fhall only ftate a 
few fads, to Blew that there is fome ground for the 
opinion. 
1. All accounts, and particularly thofe of MefT. 
Gmelin, Buffon, and Daubenton, fay that the bones 
found in Siberia are larger than the bones of common 
Elephants. This would make us inclined to fufped: 
that they were not Elephants bones, but that they 
were of the Incognitutn. 
2. The Siberian femur , as reprefented by Monlieur 
Daubenton, is very much like the American femur in 
Bze, Biape, and proportions. 
This circumftance appears to be almoft a demon- 
ffration, as we have before proved, that the American 
femur is not that of an Elephant. And in this argu- 
ment, we have even the weight of Monlieur Dau- 
benton’s opinion in our favour. For he (page 2IJ.) 
taking it for granted that the Siberian femur was un- 
doubtedly elephantine, reajons from the likenefs in fize, 
Bi.:pe and proportions, that the American femur is fo. 
Now, as we have Biewn that the American femur 
is not elephantine, his proof taken from the lize, 
jfhape, and proportions of the two bones, muff: fervc 
to convince us that the Siberian thigh-bone is not 
of the Elephant, but of the incognitum. 
3. Monlieur Daubenton found a difference be- 
tween the temporal bone brought from Siberia, and 
that of an Elephant. This likewife is an argument 
in favour of our fupfjofition. 
4. The 
