ELEPHAS PRIMIGENIUS.—MILK MOLARS. 
98 
variability in its ridge formula, which does not appear to exceed x G x in either jaw. 
The tooth altogether, like the succeeding, is relatively more massive and the enamel 
thicker, and more wavey in outline than is ever seen in the Mammoth. 
The close affinities between the skull of the Asiatic Elephant and the Mammoth extends 
also to the molars. In the latter this is apparent as regards the ridge formula, which is 
precisely the same in both, as also the attenuation of the plates to some extent. 1 When the 
molar crown of E. antiquus and E. meridionalis were confounded with that of the Mammoth, 
one was apt, from fragmentary specimens of the former resembling E. Asialicus, to 
correlate the two more closely in their dentition, and even weather-stained molars of the 
latter were not unfrequently mistaken for Mammoths’ teeth. 2 
I am not aware that the teeth, or any portion of the skeleton of the youthful stages 
of growth above described, have been found in either Scotland or Ireland. The penulti¬ 
mate milk tooth is common in collections from the brick-earths of Ilford and 
neighbouring localities, also in gravels and river deposits about Oxford. It has been 
found, as just indicated, in the caverns of Devonshire and Mendip Plills, Somersetshire, 
where, doubtless, as in similar situations, it represents the rejectmenta of numerous 
victims of the great Carnivores. As to the specimens from the Norfolk Coast, the same 
uncertainty as to their stratigraphical relations obtains as with other portions of the 
skeleton of the Mammoth asserted to have been found in the Forest Red. 
The Fourth or Ultimate Milk Molar. 
The last of the milk series is plentiful in collections. It invariably marks a rapid 
increase in the growth of an Elephant, as revealed by the much larger sizes of the 
incisors and molars in comparison with penultimate milk teeth. 
1 Falconer, in summing up the data regarding the ridge formula of the milk series in comparison 
with the same teeth in the Indian Elephant, observes that the former is “ liable to the same variation as 
regards the ante-penultimate (the italics are mine) upper and lower as is met with in that species, namely, 
the ridges varying from seven to eight,” ‘Pal. Mem.,’ vol. ii, p. 163 ; see also ‘Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc.,’ 
vol. xxi, p. 327. Clearly this “ slip of the pen ” refers to the third or penultimate, and not the second or 
ante-penultimate. The mistake is apt, however, to mislead, and seems to me worth indicating. 
" Among the very varied and very imperfectly named and classified proboscidean remains of 
the ‘ Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis ’ there are several figures referred by Dr. Falconer to E. planifrons 
and E. Hysudricus, which might be most advantageously compared with the remains of the European 
and living Elephants, but as this would imply a detailed acquaintance with all the vast and 
heterogenous materials collected by Falconer, Cautly, and others, in the British Museum and elsewhere, an 
undertaking the first, with his profound knowledge of the subject, seems to have shrank from entering 
upon. I can, therefore, only indicate here a few of the more suggestive teeth and bones with which the 
same parts of the Mammoth might be compared; for example, the first and second milk molars of 
E. planifrons, erroneously named E. Hysudricus (see ‘Pal. Mem.,’ vol. i, p. 442, footnote; pi. xiv, 
fig. 10 ; and pi. vii, figs. 5 and 6), representing the same dental conditions in E. Hysudricus. 
13 
