FALCONER ON THE AMERICAN FOSSIL ELEPHANT. 89 
different Elephants living in the same forests; but it is common to 
the Northern as well as to the Southern form, and, as yet, there are 
no good grounds to believe that it ever attains the importance of a 
specific distinction. The discs of wear in the Ceylon and African 
Elephants never present a similitude, except when the slightly 
abraded crown of the latter is confronted with the worn out and 
torso crown of the former. 
The most important part of Professor Schlegel’s case remains to be 
considered, namely, the number of the dorsal vertebrae and ribs. Here, 
also, I find my observations at issue with the conclusions of this dis¬ 
tinguished Zoologist. He avers not merely that the number of the 
former differs in the supposed three living species, namely, 21 in the 
African, 20 in the Sumatran, and 19 in the Indian, but thinks that 
he has detected a curious inverse relation between these numbers 
and the thickness of the laminae of the molars; where the latter are 
most attenuated the number of dorsal vertebrae is least. If the 
inference were well founded it would be of high interest. I quote 
the passage containing it in extenso :—“ If we take into consideration 
“ at once the size of the laminae of the teeth, in the different species 
“ of Elephant, and the number of the ribs and dorsal vertebrae, we 
“ obtain the remarkable result, that as the latter numbers decrease 
“ the laminae become narrower. In AJ. Africanus, these laminae are 
“ widest, and here we find the greatest number of dorsal vertebrae 
“ and pairs of ribs: A7. Sumatranus , in which the laminae are 
“ narrower, has twenty dorsal vertebrae and pairs of ribs : A7. Indicus , 
“ in which they are still narrower, only nineteen. In the Mam- 
“ moth, JS. primigenius, where they are narrowest of all, the number 
“ of dorsal vertebrae and ribs appears to be only eighteen.” # 
Extending the comparison to the Mastodons, and finding that M. 
OMoticus has only twenty dorsal vertebrae, and an equal number of 
ribs, while its crown-ridges are reduced to three or four, he concludes 
that the Mastodons form not a diverging, but a parallel series with 
the Elephants. The case, therefore, concerns not merely the Conti¬ 
nental and Sumatran varieties of the Indian Elephant, but is a vital 
question * 1 pro aris et focis,’ affecting the whole of the JElephantidce, 
fossil and recent. Eor this reason I must be permitted to examine 
it in some detail. 
And first as regards the asserted number in the African Elephant. 
Professor Schlegel twits Cuvier with having neglected to compare 
skeletons of the different species of Elephant, and having thus 
deprived himself of the merit of the discovery of the third living 
species. Is the reproach well founded P The only skeleton of the 
African form, which existed in the Parisian collections when Cuvier 
died, and even when Blainville wrote upon the family in 1844,f was 
* Bijdrage, &c. E leph. Sumatranus; vide Translation by Dr. Sclater, ‘Natural 
Hist. Keview/ vol. ii. p. 78. 
I ‘ Osteographie,’ Elephants, p. 5. 
