ELEPHAS ANTIQUUS.—TRUE MOLARS. 
45 
here and there faintly crimped, although not generally; there is also central expansion of 
the disk. The jaw, however, has more the characters of the Mammoth than of E. antiquus. 
With the last true molar of either of the living species that of E. antiquus has 
ordinarily no very close alliance, further than what has been pointed out with reference 
to the worn disk of the thick-plated variety. The crimping of the machserides, moreover, 
is very often present in the latter, and generally absent in the teeth of the African 
Elephant, in which the angulations of the disks meet and often overlap, which has not, 
seemingly, been hitherto noticed in the thick-plated variety of E. antiquus. Again, the 
rhomb is more crescentic in the latter, and its anterior border is concave, and the 
posterior border convex, with the cornua or lateral horn of the crescent bent forwards. 
The crimping so pronounced in the Asiatic is especially marked in its last molars, the 
ridge formula of which varies from x 24 x to x 27 x, whilst that of the African Elephant 
seldom exceeds 13 ridges, and never goes beyond 15 ridges. 
The same variability as regards the crown constituents prevail in the Maltese 
Elephants as in E. antiquus. In their teeth there are also clear evidences of, 1st, a 
broad crown with packed ridges j 1 2nd, a long, narrow crown f 3rd, a thick-plated 
crown 3 in penultimate and ultimate milk and all the true molars. 
The ultimate molar in the larger form, E. Mnaidriensis, usually holds a? 12 a? in 7 
inches, and rarely x 13 x in 7'5 inches, scarcely equalling in these respects the dimensions 
of the second true molar of E. antiquus; whilst that of the smaller or pigmy forms is of 
course far more diminutive. It is suggestive, however, that the Maltese Elephants 
should preserve the tendency to variability in the same directions, although differing in 
dimensions from one another and from Elepkas antiquus} 
The ultimate molar of the Eleplas meridionalis is generally distinct from that of 
Elephas antiquus. It holds the same ridge formula as that of the Maltese Elephants, 
1 ‘Pal. Mem.,’ vol. ii, pi. xi, figs. 1 and 2; and ‘ Trans. Zool. Soc. London,’ vol. ix, pi. ii, fig. 7. 
3 Idem, pi. viii, fig. 8. 
3 Idem, vol. ix, pi. iii, fig. 2 ; vii, fig. 1 ; viii, fig. 7; ix, fig. 1 ; and ‘Pal. Mem.,’ vol. ii, pi. xii, fig. 4. 
4 It will appear from a comparison of the dentitions of Elephas antiquus and Elephas Mnaidriensis 
that, with the exception of dimensions and the ridge formula of the ultimate molars, the teeth of the 
two, considered as exponents of their affinities, might belong to one species. Therefore it is clear that, if 
the latter was a variety of the former, it differed much from the ordinary individuals of E. antiquus in size, 
and to a certain extent in the numerical estimate of its ridge formula. As regards the former a significant 
observation has been made by Dr. Livingstone in his ‘Last Journals’ at p. 29, vol. ii, where he states 
having seen in Central Africa a small variety of Elephant averaging 5 feet 8 inches in height with a tusk 
6 feet in length. The great traveller, it is presumed, was perfectly conversant with the African Elephant 
and its growth, which he demonstrates by stating that this dwarf individual had a tusk of the dimensions 
of the adult. It remains to be ascertained whether or not the above is either an occasional small 
individual or else a race of the African Elephant or a distinct species. It may be observed that the stature 
of the Elephas melitensis of Falconer has been estimated by Busk at between 4 feet 2 inches and 4 feet 7 
inches, whilst I found that, as compared with recent species, the E. Mnaidriensis may have stood from 6 
to 61 or 7 feet at the withers (see ‘Trans. Zool. Soc. London,’ vol. vi, p. 307, and vol. ix, p. 116). 
