2 
BRITISH FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 
Sivalensisit has, however, been fully pointed out by himself, 1 and corrected in the 
descriptions of the plates. 2 It may be further stated that the so-called Elephas priscus of 
Gold fuss, which Dr. Falconer considered was represented by certain molars from the 
Thames Valley, 3 4 was subsequently withdrawn by him in consequence of more extended 
researches establishing these teeth as being only a variety of the grinder of Elephas 
antiquus 
In connection with the discovery and description of the species of Elephant under 
consideration, I have to observe that the first portion of Dr. Falconer’s essay on the 
British Mastodon and Elephant referred to, was published in 1857, and the second part, 
after his death, in 1865. 5 The latter is so far imperfect that it does not contain the 
description of the entire dentition of the Elephas primigenius, nor any observations on the 
Elephas antiquus, which, however, in the form of note-book entries, have been published 
by the editor of his Memoirs. 6 These jottings of the author appear, however, to have 
been written prior to the latest impressions he had formed with reference to the 
characters of certain molars in foreign museums, which on more matured experience he 
conceived did not belong to Elephas antiquus . 7 
The flood of light thrown on the study of fossil Proboscidians by the late Dr. Falconer 
shines nowhere more clearly than on the molars of British fossil Elephants ; inasmuch as, 
through the splendid discoveries made by him in the Tertiary formations of India, he 
received the impressions which led him to apply his inductions to European forms, and 
with what measure of success his masterly expositions amply show. It is to be 
regretted, however, that he has left no detailed account of the Elephas antiquus beyond 
“ note-book entries ” and a few impressions dispersed throughout his various essays. 
With the view, therefore, of supplying a desideratum in fossil zoology, I have attempted 
to bring together the results of an extensive acquaintance with such proboscidian 
remains as appear to me to belong to this Elephant. I have also compared them, as far 
as opportunities would permit, with associated and allied teeth and bones of other forms 
of British and foreign Elephants. 8 
It may be observed here that to attempt to draw a sharp line between molars of one 
1 ‘ Pal. Mem.,’ vol. ii, p. 108. 
2 Idem, vol. i, p. 438, et seq. 
3 Idem, vol. ii, p. 94, and ‘Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis,’ pi. xiv, figs. 6 and 7. 
4 Idem, vol. ii, p. 251 (Note 1). 
6 ‘ Jour. Geol. Soc. London,’ vols. xiii, xiv, and xxi. 
6 Yol. ii, p. 176. 
7 1 Pal. Mem.,’ vol. ii, p. 249. 
8 The illustrations in the ‘ Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis ’ are here referred to whenever] the original 
specimens have been examined by me. Of course, in comparing the figures with the text in that 
monograph the error in nomenclature pointed out above should be always borne in mind, and this will be 
best attained by having recourse to the description of the plates in the ‘ Palaeontological Memoirs of the 
late Dr. Falconer,’ compiled and edited by Dr. Murchison, F.R.S. 
