26 
BRITISH FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 
crimping is not always so excessive as in E. antiquus; at the same time it would be 
difficult, excepting on the score of dimensions, to make out any decided distinctions. 
The ridge formula in the Asiatic Elephant is the same as in the first true molar of 
the Mammoth, only that the crowns are not so broad and the enamel of the disk is deeply 
festooned. 
The ridge formula in the first true molar of the African equals, according to Ealconer 
and others, that of the last milk tooth, and stands usually at a? 7 x} It is quite possible 
in the more expanded disk of the E. prisms variety of E. antiquus to mistake its molars 
for those of the African; but entire specimens would doubtless clear up any ambiguity 
created by broken teeth, which cannot be invariably depended on in establishing the 
dental characters of any one form of Elephant. 
In compounding the data evolved from the examination of the foregoing and other 
specimens of the first true molar of E. antiquus, referred to by Ealconer in his 
memoirs and also in collections, it appears that the estimate of the latter authority is below 
the average deduced from the materials I have been enabled to study. He assigns a 
ridge formula of ten plates, besides talons, to the first true molar. I find that in upper 
teeth the ridges vary from eleven to fourteen in a space between 5ffi and 8 inches; 
whilst thirteen ridges is a very steady number in lower teeth, with a maximum of 
fourteen ridges, included between 6 and 8’3 inches. 
Considering therefore that Dr. Ealconer assigns twelve plates and two talons to the 
penultimate true molar of E. antiquus , it might be inferred that I may have included teeth in 
the above list which should have been placed with the second true molar. It will appear, 
however, that the instance in which the largest number of ridges is shown, to wit, the upper 
tooth from the Mendip Caves at p. 23, is given on the authority of Dr. Falconer, where xl2x 
are contained in a space of 7 - 2 inches, and the upper tooth, p. 22, in the Geological Society’s 
Museum, where the same number of ridges are contained in a space of only 6'5 inches, I 
admit, however, in this latter instance an abnormal condition of the crown, the other lower 
molar, p. 26, holding a? 12 a? in inches being the one in Baron Anca’s possession, is con¬ 
sequently a foreign specimen. Allowing, therefore, that these excessive examples might have 
a doubtful relationship with the first true molar, we find that, as regards dimensions, they 
are short compared with instances just adduced of both upper and lower molars with 
thirteen ridges in a space of 8'3 inches; whilst an analysis of the entire series shows a 
constant variation in the number of ridges and dimensions, especially in upper molars. 
Perhaps about x 10 as to a? 11 x for maxillary, and x 11 x for mandibular teeth, will 
fairly represent the ridge formula of the first true molar of Elephas antiquus. 
1 ‘ Pal. Mem.,’ vol. ii, p. 89. 
