64 
BRITISH FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 
12. CALCANEUM. 
In pi. lv, fig. 2, ‘ E. A. S.,’ Dr. Falconer represents what he supposed to be a left 
heel bone of E. antiquus, from Grays, Essex. It is No. 21,322, B. M., and differs from 
several calcanea of the Mammoth and of the Asiatic in having its sides equally compressed, 
with the peroneal facet large and more protuberant, in which peculiarities it agrees with 
the entire calcaneum of E. Melitensis} This character is not so pronounced in the 
African, whereas in the Mammoth and E. Asiaticus the hollowing out is greater on the 
inside than the outside of the heel ; and whilst the dorsal aspect is narrow in the Grays 
specimen and the Maltese heel bone, it is more rounded in the others. The inter¬ 
osseous pit is narrow in the Grays specimen as compared with many examples of the 
Mammoth, where it is usually triangular. 
Two enormous calcanea. Nos. 33,420 and 33,419, B. M., from the Norfolk Coast have 
more the characters of the Asiatic and Mammoth as regards the projection of the 
peroneal facet. In the Museum at Norwich there are many heel bones in Mr. Gunn’s 
collection ; none, however, are sufficiently entire to show the hollow on either side. 
IY. GENERAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 
In summing up the foregoing details relating to the dental and osseous characters 
whereby we are enabled to differentiate three species of extinct British Elephants, 
it may be asked whether or not the materials admit of being accepted as the variable 
elements of one species subject to a range of mutability beyond any precedent in 
the morphologies of living or extinct members of the genus Elephas. When the dental 
materials are arranged with the view of testing their taxonomic values they will be 
found to admit of a classification into three very distinct series, which as far as is yet 
known seem to indicate both in their characters and distribution as many distinct forms of 
Elephants. This is apparent when their typical last true molars are placed side by 
side. Thus, the teeth from which the names of Elephas prirnigenius, E. antiquus, and 
E. meridionalis have been derived, represent such pronounced differences, that, with the 
knowledge of the well-known specific characters which distinguish the dental materials 
of the two living species, there can be no possible reason in not accepting their very 
divergent aspects as true morphological differences. Again, passing to a consideration 
of the skeletons in general, whilst we find very close affinities, still there are points 
1 ‘Trans. Zool. Soc. London,’ vol. ix, pi. xvi, fig. 5. 
