44 
BRITISH FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 
There are other highly suggestive instances of the ultimate molar of E. Namadicus 
in the British Museum. For example: 
The two upper last molars contained in a skull is represented in 1 2 F. A. S.,’ pi. xii b, 
figs. 2 and 3. Only 11 plates remain in a space of 8'1 inches. The crown shows the 
closely packed ridges of A Variety of E. antiquus. 
Another huge cranium contains ultimate molars holding as many as 22 plates in a 
space of 13 inches . 1 
A magnificent right lower ramus, containing an entire tooth, is well shown in the 
‘F. A. S.,’ pi. xiic, figs. 4 and 5. It is an ultimate molar, and holds x 19 a; in 14‘7 
inches. Another mutilated mandible containing similar teeth is shown in figs. 5 and 5 a 
of the same plate. 
Both of these specimens are in the British Museum, as also another ultimate lower 
tooth, in situ. Dr. Falconer refers to the “ crimped characters of Elephas antiquus ” in 
connection with the teeth of E. Namadicus in several places . 3 These molars seem to 
me inseparable from varieties of E. antiquus, in particular the long, narrow, and the 
broad crown with its closely packed ridges. 
The last true molar of the Mammoth differs generally from that of E. antiquus both 
in contour and number of ridges. There are exceptional instances, however, in well- 
worn teeth of the latter, such as the specimens from Walton and Southwold described 
at p. 38, where a broad crown, with closely approximated ridges and faint crimping, 
becomes scarcely distinguishable, if at all, from an ordinary or aberrant pattern of crown 
of E. primigenius . 3 But considering the vast numbers of the molars of both species in 
public and private collections in Great Britain and on the Continent, and the pronounced 
specific dental characters of the two, it seems to me that, as far as odontography extends, 
nothing can be more distinct than the ordinary molars of these Elephants, and, I repeat, 
the only wonder is that they should have been so long confounded. 
This applies with equal, if not more, force in the case of Elephas meridionatis, whose 
ultimate, like the preceding, molars are easily distinguishable from those of either of the 
preceding by the massiveness of the tooth, thickness of enamel and plates, with scarcely 
plaited machaerides, the great breadth to height, and low ridge formula, which rarely, 
if ever, exceeds that of the second true molar of E. antiquus. 4 
Another doubtful example is seen in the mandible, No. 32,496, B. M., containing the 
last true molar in full wear on either side. Each tooth holds 19 x, and clearly did not 
exceed a? 19—20 x, like the Ilford teeth of the Mammoth. It was dredged off Harwich. 
The ridges are closely approximated as in the members of A Variety, with the machaerides 
1 ‘Pal. Mem.,’ vol. i, p. 435. 
2 Idem, vol. i, pp. 116, 437, note 1. 
3 ‘ Ossemen Fossiles,’ pi. xii, fig. 5, British Museum, &c. 
4 1 Pal. Mem.,’ vol. ii, pp. 112 and 116 ; and ‘F. A. S.,’ pi. xivB, fig. 14 ; and British and Norwich 
Museums. 
