ta n.T £.] 
Li/dckJier: Slegodon Ganexa. 
43 
The sub-genus was founded on the peculiar character of the molar teeth, the grinding 
Surface of which is divided into a series of transverse hills and valleys, the enamel passing 
over the surfaces of both, and not penetrating into the substance of the crown: these ridges 
are capped by a number of small eminences, generally known as cusps ; there is never any 
distinct antero-posterior valley running across the ridges, by which negative character the 
sub-genus is at once easily distinguished from the allied genus Mastodon. 
Of the four Indian species of the sub-genus, Stegodon cliflii has the smallest number 
of ridges, which sufficiently distinguishes the molars of this species. Of the other three 
species we find the ridge-formula to bo exactly the same in all; the molars, indeed, of 8. 
insignis and S. ganesa, Dr. Falconer says, (Pal. Mem., vol. I, p. 80). are so alike, that the 
“ differences are practically insufficient for the discrimination of the two species.” The 
molars of & bombfrons are distinguished from those of the other two species by having 
the ridges “ broader and less elevated, with more open hollows;” the distinction is, however, 
very slight indeed. Prof. Owen, in his paper cited above, lays great stress on the number of 
cusps on the ridges, as affording a valuable distinction between the molars of the different 
species of Stegodon ; this appears to me to be a somewhat insufficient character, and one 
which would be extremely likely to vary in different individuals, and I do not find that it 
holds good for the molars of the crania of the different species in the collections of the Im¬ 
perial Museum. 
I therefore consider the molars of Stegodon ganesa and Stegodon insignis as indistin¬ 
guishable one from the other; the skulls arc, however, easily' recognized, that of S. insignis 
“being singularly modified, so as to bear an analogy to the cranium of Deinntherium, while 
the head of S. ganesa does not differ much from the ordinary type of the elephant” (Pal. 
Mem., vol. I, p. 81). In spite, however, of this striking difference in the two crania, Dr. 
Falconer, subsequently to writing the above passage, had reason to doubt the specific distinct¬ 
ness of S. ganesa : he did not state, however, on what grounds, or with which species lie pro¬ 
posed to amalgamate it; the distinctness, however, of the molars of Stegodon bombifrons 
shows that it must have been with S. insignis. If any certain distinction could bo drawn 
between the molars of S. insignis and S. ganesa, it would be of itself sufficient to confirm 
the distinctness of the latter; as it is, we are driven to depend on the character of the crania 
alone. 
At first sight the huge tusks and alveoli, the largo size of the inter-alveolar fossa and of 
the nasal fossa, together with the high and vaulted frontals, appear alone quite sufficient to 
distinguish the cranium of S. ganesa from the small-tusked S. insignis, with the small 
nasal fossa, and the peculiar flattening and ridging of the frontals ; if, however, we turn to 
the figures of the crania of /S', insignis in the “ Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis,” we shall find that 
the peculiar shape of the frontals of the adult of S. insignis is not present in those of the 
young animal: (the peculiarity in the adult arising from a partial development of the 
intertabular fossa;). From this fact, in accordance with Falconer’s doubts, I have thought 
it might be possible that S. ganesa is only a lmge-tusked male form, of which S. 
insignis is the female; in the former, in correlation with the great development of the lower 
part of the skull to carry the large tusks, the frontal sinuses are also developed in like 
manner, and not aborted as in the female (S . insignis). 
The size of the crania of S. ganesa in the British Museum is, however, much larger in 
proportion to those of S. insignis than occurs in the living species of elephants; and I 
cannot but think it expedient to continue to consider the two as distinct species, as the 
crania are so widely different. The present cranium has smaller tusks than any described 
specimen of S. ganesa, although they are still much larger than those of S. insignis. I 
think it, therefore, not improbable that this may he a female form, which supposition would 
