ELEPHAS PRIMI GENIUS.—TRUE MOLARS. 
105 
There is an upper molar in the Oxford University Museum from Christian Malford, 
in Wilts, which was found “in stiff clay.” It holds x 15 x in 6jx3 inches, and eight 
ridges in 3 inches. This tooth is assuredly a second true molar, and the plates are thick, 
whilst the crown is diagnostic of the Mammoth. 
A tooth in the Museum of Practical Geology, from Maidstone, has x 15 * in 
7 X 2f inches. Its enamel is rather thick. 
A tooth, No. 46,147 (PI. IX, figs. 1 and 1 a, half natural size), from the Dogger 
Bank, in Mr. Owles’s Collection, B. M., shows a? 15 a’ in 8 X 2 - 6 inches, and eight ridges 
in 3 2 inches. It displays a very broad heel and posterior talon. The crown is typical 
of the Mammoth, and is ////^-plated. 
A fine specimen, supposed to be from the Arctic Regions, is in the collection of 
the British Museum. It holds distinctly x 15 x in 7^X3 inches. The sculpturing 
of the worn disk is typical of the Mammoth; and the size and contour of the tooth 
assuredly represent the penultimate. 
The upper molar, No. 21,272, B. M., from Epplesheim, shows a ridge formula of 
x 15 x in 6jX 2^ inches, and eight in 3j inches. There is no crimping, and the tooth 
is very typical, having thin enamel. 
The addition of another ridge to form the formula x 16 x, asserted by Falconer as 
distinctive of the second true molar of the Mammoth, 1 although present in a few lower 
teeth, has not come under my notice in a perfectly entire upper-jaw specimen. There 
are a few penultimate upper molars holding sixteen ridges in the British Museum and in 
other museums, but none are so entire as to show the sixteen plates, with an anterior as 
well as a posterior talon. I make no doubt, however, that numerous instances could be 
added to those given by Falconer; and even another ridge is most probably often present, 
although I have not hitherto seen an upper tooth with such a high ridge formula. 
Indeed, looking to the data furnished by the specimens of upper molars which have come 
under my notice, I find out of seven entire and, to all appearances, undoubted instances 
of this tooth from various British and foreign localities, three exhibited a ridge formula of 
x 14 x and four of x 15 x. 
Lower molars .—The lower penultimate true molar fully sustains the variability of the 
formula represented by its upper tooth. 
No. 40,790, B. M., from the Thames Valley “ brick-earths” (?), exhibits a? 14 x in 
8X 2-|, and holds eight ridges in 4| inches. Here the plates are thick; there is little 
cement, but thick enamel, with the crown well arcuated. 
The same number of ridges is contained in a tooth from the Oxford gravels in 
Oxford University Museum. It is 6^ X 2J inches, and holds eight ridges in 3'8 inches. 
Two molars, evidently of the same individual, each holding a? 15 a? in 8x2'8 inches, 
and eight ridges in 3L inches, are preserved in the Museum of Science and Art, Dublin. 
1 Op. cit., yoI. ii, p. 166. 
