78 
BRITISH FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 
members of the dental series, the range of variability being often so great that the average 
of a given number of specimens is no reliable exponent of the numbers and variations to 
which the tooth is subject. 
A similar conclusion was come to by me with reference to the dental series of 
E. antiquus; and therefore, as in the latter case, I am compelled to believe that the only 
true method of expressing the ridge-formula of elephantine molars is by giving the mini¬ 
mum, mean, and maximum number of ridges of each member of the dental series. 
Therefore, Hr. Falconer’s method of demonstrating the ridge-formulae of his sub-genus 
Euelephas by progressive increments of 4, or anisomerous ciphers, seems to me both 
arbitrary and dogmatical. It is, in fact, too absolute a method, and is at variance with 
the laws of mutability of species, which advancing knowledge shows is far greater than 
has been supposed. 
In the Synoptical Table of the Species of Mastodon and Elephant Dr. Falconer 
distinguishes the worn crowns of molars of E. primigenius from the teeth of all other 
known living or extinct species thus :—“ Colliculi confertissimi, adamante valde attenuato, 
maclueridibus vix undulatis.” 1 
Cuvier had previously established broad marks of distinction between the molar of 
the Mammoth and that of the Asiatic Elephant, with whose skeleton generally he had 
noted certain well-marked affinities. But although more experienced than, perhaps, any 
of his contemporaries and predecessors, as far as the manipulation of remains of extinct 
Elephants was concerned, he applied the specific name of Elephas primigenius to all the 
fossil Elephant remains discovered in his time, and previously, in Europe, Arctic Asia, 
and North America. It is but justice, however, to his great name, and also to the credit 
of several of his successors, to remember that the light which shone dimly on them by 
reason of scanty data shines now brightly on account of the enormous amount of 
materials accumulated even since the publication of the ‘ British Fossil Mammals.’ 
The molar crown of the Mammoth is distinguishable from that of other and allied 
species by the—1, great breadth of the crown as compared with the length; 2, the 
narrowness of the ridges; 3, the crowding or close approximation of the ridges; 4, the 
tenuity of the enamel; 5, the absence of crimping. 2 
These characters combined suffice to distinguish the grinder from that of its near 
allies, such as of the E. Asiaticus, E. antiquus , and E. meridionalis. 
With reference to (1) the great breadth of the crown. This character, although also 
present in E. meridionalis, is distinctive of the Mammoth as compared with the other two 
species, to which may be added the Elephas Columbi , with whose remains it is said to 
1 ‘ Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. Lond.,’ vol. xiii, p. 319 ; also ‘ Pal. Mem.,’ vol. ii, p. 14. As in the case 
of Elephas antiquus, I shall refer to these essays in his Memoirs, for the reason that they are published 
together, and are, therefore, more convenient for reference. 
s I have adopted the same terms used in my Monograph on Elephas antiquus. All enamelled 
laminae, whether plates or talons, are indiscriminately named ridges. A colliculus is an unworn ridge 
The letter x stands for talon as opposed to plate. 
