281—100 
SIWALIK AND NAEBADA PROBOSCIDIA. 
place, as we have seen, the milk-molars of the Narbada species are, with one excep- 
tion, unknown, and it is possible that their ridge-formula may differ somewhat 
from that of the milk-molars of E. antiquus. Secondly, there is the very peculiarly 
shaped cranium of E. namadicus, characterized by the great supraorbital ridge, well 
exhibited in the large cranium figured in plate XIIB of the “ Bauna Antiqua Siva- 
lensis,” in another craniuni in the British Museum, and in two crania in the 
Indian Museum. All the other crania of E. namadicus in the latter collection, and 
I believe also in the former, are imperfect superiorly, so that in all the complete 
crania known to me this very characteristic frontal ridge occurs, and it may, there- 
fore, he fairly considered as characteristic of the Indian species. In noticing this 
peculiarity of the cranium of the Narbada elephant. Professor Leith Adams suggests^ 
that it may he due to distortion, a view which, I think, is disproved by the facts 
given above. 
Of Elephas antiquus Professor Leith Adams, in the above quoted passage, says, 
he is unacquainted with any English cranium, but refers to one in the museum at 
Borne, in which I infer, though it is not clearly expressed, that there is no ridge, 
like that of the Narbada elephant. If the cranium of the European elephant have 
no such ridge, while it is constant in the Indian form, I cannot think it by any 
means proved that E. namadicus and E, antiquus are varieties of one species, though 
there can be no doubt but that, as was admitted by Ealconer, they are extremely 
closely allied, and possibly that the molars of the two are indistinguishable in a 
large series. 
With regard to the great similarity of the teeth in the two species, we have 
already seen in the case of Stegodon ganesa and S. insignis that the teeth of two 
forms of elephant may be indistinguishable, while the crania are very widely 
different. In the lower true molars of E. namadicus there seems to be a tendency 
to a somewhat higher ridge-formula than in E. antiquus? 
As the crania and molars of Eleplias namadicus in the collection of the Indian 
Museum do not differ from those figured in the “ Eauna Antiqua Sivalensis,” I have 
not considered it necessary to give figures of any of them on the present occasion. 
The molars of this species are stated by Ealconer to differ^ from those of E. 
hysudricus, in the greater height of the ridges or plates, in the slight amount of their 
thinning superiorly, and in their nearly vertical direction. There is also no loop near 
the middle of the plates on the grinding surface in the enamel, and the cement is 
thinner. The molars differ from those of E. indicus (apart from the difference in 
the number of ridges), by the worn dentine surfaces being thicker and presenting no 
curve towards the apex ; the enamel is also thicker. In the crimping of the enamel 
plates the two species are very much alike. 
' loc. cit., p. 52. 
^ At page 68 of his memoir on E. antiquus, Prof. Adams seems to be under the impression that E. namadic.us 
is found in the Siwaliks of Northern India and extends back into the Miocene. Eemains of the species have' only been 
found in the presumably Pleistocene deposits of the Narbada valley ; E. namadicus is probably later in time than E. 
antiquus, and not earlier, as is stated by Prof. Adams. 
