30 
BRITISH FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 
variety of last true molar comes to be considered. I recognised in 1863, in Baron Anca’s 
collection from the Palermo caves, an undoubted second true molar of the lower jaw, 
containing x 12 x in 8 inches. Mr. Busk and Dr. Falconer identified an upper penul¬ 
timate true molar from Europa Point, Gibraltar. 1 2 
Affinities. A comparison between the first true molar of E. antiquus and E. 
Namadicus is illustrated by the beautiful specimen in B. M. of the second molar, shown 
in figs. 3 and 3 a, plate xii d, of the ! Fauna Sivalensis.’ Here, in a left ramus, x 12 x 
is contained in 13 6 inches. The crown, like the other teeth, unprotected by a preceding 
molar, is excessively narrow, just like the equally characteristic lower first true molar of 
E. antiquus, fig. 4, of the same plate, to which reference has already been made, and 
also to the last upper molar, fig. 5, to which I shall allude in the sequel. All the 
above molars of E. Namadicus, as far as characters extend, are simply indistinguishable 
from accepted teeth of E. antiquus, the only exception being the unusually large size of 
fig. 3 as compared with a second true molar of E. antiquus. 
The Eleplias Mnaidriensis presents in the second as in the preceding molars all the 
characters of the Eleplias antiquus in a much smaller animal, the number of ridges, twelve 
or x 10 x, being held in an estimated space of 6'5 inches, but, unfortunately, my 
determinations are computed from specimens not altogether entire ; 3 however, they clearly 
show by comparison with ultimate molars to have been of the maximum length just 
stated, but with a ridge formula equal to the first true molar of E. antiquus. 
The Asiatic Elephant, excepting in the excessive crimping and less lateral dimensions, 
holds relatively the same formula as the Mammoth. 
In the African Elephant the low ridge formula, according to Falconer (x 8 — 9 a ?) 3 with 
the rhomb-shaped pattern of the disk and its short ridges will ordinarily distinguish 
second true molars from the vast majority of those of E. antiquus, excepting, perhaps, the 
so-called E. priscus variety, with which crowns of the former might be easily confounded. 
The second true molar in the Mammoth is a broad-crowned tooth, with short and 
closely approximated ridges, in the great majority of specimens seldom averaging less 
than x 16 a; in its ridge formula. The enamel is thin, and when at all, only faintly 
crimped at the outer and inner margins of the enamel. 4 Sometimes a thicker-plated 
example may be found, and a broad-crowned variety of the E. antiquus may make the 
diagnosis difficult, especially if the plan of the crown is not fully shown, but the 
exceptions will be few where the practised observer will fail to distinguish between the 
respective molars of the above species. 
In Eleplias meridionalis the ridges are nearly as broad as they are long, and never so 
numerous as in the foregoing, whilst the thick plates and grosser masses of intervening 
1 ‘ Jour. Geol. Soc. London,’ vol. xxi, p. 366. 
2 ‘ Trans. Zool. Soc. London,’ vol. ix, pi. iii; pi. viii, figs. 2 and 4, p. 27. 
3 ‘Pal. Mem.,’ vol. ii, p. 90, and ‘F. A. S.,’ pi. xiv, fig. 5. 
4 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 166. Numerous suggestive specimens in the British and Norwich Museums. 
