ELEPHAS ANTIQUUS—MILK MOLARS. 
15 
deposits at Ilford. The crown is little worn, therefore the sculpturing is not pronounced; 
in consequence, Dr. Falconer could not make up his mind with reference to its specific 
characters. 1 The ridges, however, are thick, the crown is narrow as compared to the height, 
and it holds x G x in 2'7 inches, which are in favour of its connection with E. antiquus. 
Two specimens in the National Collection, from Bleadon Cave, in the Mendip 
Hills, each displaying a formula of x7xin 2'3 inches, are very characteristic of the 
lower penultimate milk molar of E. antiquus. 
Mr. Fitch, F.G.S., of Norwich, has in his possession two distinctive lower molars, 
right and left, from the Forest Bed at Cromer. They hold x G x in 8 inches, and as 
usual are broad behind and narrow in front. The crowns are in full wear. 
It is now well ascertained that all the determinable elephantine remains from 
Kirk dale Cave belong to A 1 , antiquus, and not to E. primigenius, as was supposed prior 
to the differentiation of the characters of the former by Falconer. The tooth figured in 
the ‘ Reliquiae Diluvianse ’ 2 is, with others, in the Oxford Museum, and has been referred 
to by Falconer. 3 It shows the large ridge formula of x 8 x in a space of only 2'65 inches, 
but as elsewhere observed, the highest ridge formula does not necessarily carry a 
corresponding length of crown. 
I have been unable to obtain references to specimens of the penultimate milk molar 
of Elephas antiquus in foreign collections. 
Affinities. —The second milk tooth in the Mammoth ordinarily holds a ridge formula 
equal to the higher expression here given in connection with E. antiquus. The contour 
of the tooth also in the former partakes more of an oval than an oblong shape ; conse¬ 
quently, the crown is relatively broader. It is the case, however, that individual instances 
may occur when it would be difficult to give a decided opinion. I believe, however, 
that in any member of the dental series a well-worn crown, perfectly entire as to ridges, 
will in practised hands, indicate to which of the two Elephants it belongs. The com¬ 
pressed laminae with no well-defined rugae on the enamel, and therefore an absence of 
crimping of the disk of wear, the breadth of the crown, as compared with the height of 
the ridges, and the high ridge formula will ordinarily suffice as diagnostic of this tooth, and, 
indeed, of all members of the series in E. primigenius, as compared with the Elephant in 
question. 
This tooth in E. meridionalis is distinguishable generally by its comparative broader 
crown, more massive laminae, with the crimping more exaggerated than in E. antiquus, 
and ridge formula of only x 6 x ,- 4 but it must be freely admitted that even well-worn 
crowns may be found presenting characters barely distinguishable from the same in the 
second milk molar of E. antiquus, especially its thick-plated variety. 
1 ‘Pal. Menu,’ vol. ii, p. 179. 
3 Plate vii, fig. 1. 
3 ‘Pal. Mem.,’ vol. ii, p. 179. 
4 ‘ F. A. S.,’ pi. xiv b, figs. 1 and 3, and ‘ Ossemens Fossiles,’ pi. xv, fig. 4. 
