82 
OEIGIFAL AETICLES. 
In 1819, the late Prince of Canino (Charles L. Buonaparte) 
made a communication to the Zoological Society, in which he affirmed 
that JE. Sumatranus of Temminck was intermediate between the Con¬ 
tinental Indian and African Elephants; and that the differences in 
the form of the skull, and in the teeth, were so pronounced as to 
put an end with certainty to the subgeneric distinction between 
j Elephas proper and Loxodon .* But there are errors of statement 
in the Prince of Canino’s brief notice which divest it of the authority 
of accurate or original observation. He even asserts that the “ im- 
“ dulated ribbons of enamel are nearly quite as wide as those forming 
“ the lozenges of the African.” 
Last year, Professor Schlegel, whose attention has been con¬ 
tinually directed to the subject since 1815, communicated a paper to 
the Academy of Sciences of Holland, in which he lays claim to the 
authorship of the opinion first put forward in Temminck’s work, and 
maintains it upon extended observation.! 
In order to facilitate their examination, I shall classify the dis¬ 
tinctions which have been adduced, from first to last, in support of 
the view, although some of them have been abandoned in the pro¬ 
gress of the inquiry. 
I. External characters. —Small ears, and general form, both, as in 
the Continental Elephant; but the Sumatran species more slender 
and more finely built; trunk longer and more slender; extremity of 
the tail more dilated, and invested with longer and stronger bristles, 
in this respect reminding one more of the African than the Indian 
species. (Schlegel). 
II. Greater degree of intelligence and aptitude for instruction . 
(Diard in Schlegel). 
III. Osteological characters. 
(A.) Glen era! construction of the skeleton and form of the cra¬ 
nium alike, but: 
1. Eree part of intermaxillaries shorter and narrower. 
2. Nasal aperture more contracted. 
3. Inter-orbital space narrower. 
4. Posterior part of the cranium wider. (Schlegel in Temminck). 
5. Eorm of skull intermediate between African and Indian. (C. 
L. Buonaparte). 
(B.) Molar teeth. —Bibbons (discs of wear) in form like those of 
the Indian species, i. e., the enamel-plates highly crimped, parallel, 
and free from the rhomb-shaped expansion of the African Elephant; 
but the ribbons wider (in the direction of the long axis), and conse¬ 
quently less numerous than in the Indian species ; the difference being 
in the ratio of 3 or 4 : 1 in the Sumatran, and 4 or 6 : 1 in the Con- 
* Proceed. Zool. Soc. 1849, p. 144. 
f ‘ Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis van Olifanten, voornamelijk, Elepilias Suma- 
tranus ,’ translated by Dr. Sclater, Nat. Hist. Review, 1862, Yol. ii. p. 72. 
