46 
BRITISH FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 
with occasionally an additional ridge or two. The crown is relatively much broader 
than in E. antiquus, and the massive wedges of intervening cement between the plates, 
with the smooth and usually uncrimped enamel, and the low height of the ridges, 
distinguish it generally from the same tooth in every other known species of European 
fossil Elephants. 
It will be seen from the foregoing that the last true molar in E. antiquus, like its pre¬ 
decessors, is subject to great variations in size and number of ridges, so much so that it 
seems impossible to establish anything like constancy in the formula. Dr. Falconer puts 
the dental formula at 16 plates exclusive of talons. 1 An analysis of the British data here 
given shows, as regards upper molars, that in individual teeth there is a range of between 16 
and 20 plates, exclusive of talons, in specimens varying between 9'5 to 12’8 inches ; whilst 
in lower jaws as few as 15 plates and 2 talons are contained in a space of 11 inches, and 
ordinarily in the specimens the formula varies from the latter number of ridges to 19 
(probably 20) plates, besides talons, in between 93 and 13 inches. It may be an 
approximation to the truth in estimating the ridge formula of upper teeth at 16 to 18 
plates, besides talons, and of lower at 18 plates and 2 talons. No doubt larger specimens 
might be adduced than any entire teeth here recorded; indeed, several of the injured 
specimens not included in the estimate evidently attained to greater dimensions than 
the above; but, as far as British instances extend, I have seen no case of such a high 
o 
expression of the ridge formula as is ordinarily attained in the E. Asiaticus and Mam¬ 
moth, although it must be acknowledged that ultimate molars of the latter from Ilford 
show in the number of their laminae an agreement, as will be stated presently, to the 
highest range in the E. antiquus; and, notwithstanding that the tooth of the Mammoth 
usually shows a considerably higher formula, it will be admitted that these instances of 
variation are of the utmost value in the correlation of their dentitions. 
The dental formula of Elephas antiquus given by Falconer, exclusive of talons, is as 
follows: 
Milk Molars. 
3 + 6+10 
3+6+10 
True Molars. 
10 + 12 + 16. 
10 + 12 + 16. 
The elimination of talons in computing the number of enamelled ridges of a pro¬ 
boscidian tooth must be often a questionable proceeding, inasmuch as it may happen 
that the anterior or posterior ridge is in no way distinct from the succeeding plates, 
whilst many instances occur of modifications of two terminal ridges, indistinguishable 
from the ordinary splint or rudimentary ridge, which, again, may be dwarfed to a mere 
appendage to the last or to the first plate. It would appear that Dr. Falconer applied a too 
rigorous criticism in regard to what he considered a plate, and such ridges as should be 
admitted only as talon appendages; and nowhere is this more evident than in his estimate 
of the ridge formula of Elephas antiquus. 
1 ‘ Pal. Mem.,’ vol. ii, p. 176, 
