ELEPHAS PRIMIGENIUS.—TRUE MOLARS. 
99 
of tlie detrition of the penultimate true molar, 1 and, judging from the sizes of jaws, 
molars, and tusks, and as far as is known of the long bones, the same obtained in the 
Mammoth. The first true molar ushers in the adolescent stage, when the animal is said 
to attain sexual maturity. 
Upper Molars .—The molar, No. 46,211, B. M., from the Dogger Bank, shown PI. XI, 
fig. 2, presents the very unusual anomaly of containing only nine plates and two talons, 
and comparable in that respect with the penultimate and ultimate milk-molars referred 
to at pp. 90 and 95. The double falcated anterior fang supports the first two ridges, and the 
posterior talon is intact, so that there can be no question whatever of the ridge formula. 
The crown is 6 X 2f inches, and contains the very unusual proportion of not less than 
eight ridges in a space of 4^ inches, there being nearly 08 inch to each plate. This 
arises entirely from an excessive quantity of cement, which appears to take up the space 
occupied in other teeth by plates. 
A comparison between this anomalous crown and that of a first true molar of 
E. antiquus (Monograph, PI. Ill, fig. 2) shows striking likenesses, only that the latter 
holds a? 10 a? in 7 inches, and its crown is not nearly so broad. 
Upper-jaw teeth, in situ , are not nearly so plentiful as lower. The Brady Collection 
from Ilford, No. c 1, contains a mutilated palate holding two well-worn crowns, but the 
right is imperfect, and therefore affords little information of the relative dimensions of the 
palate region. The remains of large incisive sheaths show that the tusk was fully 
developed. The left molar appears to me to furnish evidence of a ridge formula of x 12 x 
in 5’5x3 inches, and to contain eight ridges in 8^ inches. 
The Woodwardian Museum possesses a molar from Gristhorpe Bat, Yorkshire. It 
contains a? 12 a? in 5 X 2|, and holds eight ridges in 2'7 inches, and might be fairly placed 
with the /Am- plated teeth. 
There are two detached upper molars, Nos. 15 and 23, in the same collection from 
the Cambridge gravels, presenting a ridge formula of a? 12 x ■, the former is 5'5 X 2'8 
inches, the latter is 5'5 X 2‘5 inches, but whilst the former holds eight ridges in 3 inches, 
the latter shows the same number in a length of 3g inches. A molar from a cave in 
the north of Spain, holding a? 12 a? in 5 X 2'3 inches, is recorded by me elsewhere. 2 
The enamel is thick, like that of Ilford molars, and there is faint crimping of the borders 
of the ridges. 
Another upper tooth from Cambridge, No. 14, with m 12 x in 7X3 inches, holds 
eight ridges in 3f inches. 
Another from Langford, near Rugby, in the Oxford University Museum, with the 
same ridge formula in 5x3 inches, has eight in 3J inches, and shows unusual thickness 
of the enamel or dentine, in other words “ thick plates.” 
A tooth found in fluviatile deposits of the Thames Valley at Battersea, London, holds 
1 This is well seen at present in the young Indian Elephants lately presented to the Zoological Society 
of London by H.R.H. The Prince of Wales. 
2 ‘ Journ. Geol. Soc. Lond.,’ vol. xxxiii, p. 537. 
