108 
BRITISH FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 
posterior portion behind the third molars, which are also incomplete, there being only 
eighteen anterior plates remaining. The second is more than two thirds worn, with 
only nine plates remaining, and its heel is three inches in advance of the anterior 
border of the coronoid. 
The disks are narrow, free from crimping; the enamel is thin, with rather an excess 
of cement. 
The diastemes (fig. 20) are erect, and contract the interspace in front (fig. C), 
considerably more so than usual, their borders being only two inches apart, and one of 
the mental loramina passes directly through the jaw into the gutter close to the internal 
nutritive canal of that channel. The upper and outer opening is just under the fang of 
the anterior tooth. 
In the thinness of the enamel, narrow disks, and rather thick intervening cement, the 
above and some molars said to have been found in the Eorest-bed present agreements. 
The superb mandible. No. 49,196, dredged off the Dogger Bank, is figured and 
described by Falconer, 1 who, however, does not appear to have been aware of its origin. 
It represents the transition stage when the second true molar is two thirds worn and 
about one third of the ultimate tooth is invaded. The heel of the penultimate is three 
and a half inches in front of the anterior border. 
The above is an interesting specimen in two ways. The thick enamel is exceptional 
in Dogger Bank specimens; secondly, it is rather a famous jaw, having been the one 
represented on the front covers of the ‘’London Geological Journal ’ during its able editor¬ 
ship by Mr. Charlesworth, F.G.S. 2 
About as large a number of lower teeth as is exhibited by the ridge formula of 
x 14 x, but imperfect specimens, holding as many as sixteen plates and a talon, might 
be also adduced, but their imperfection makes the diagnosis uncertain. On the whole 
it seems to me that the majority of penultimate upper molars of the Mammoth will be 
found to contain a formula of a? 15 x. 
The entire or nearly perfect skull in the Royal Museum of Brussels from Belgian deposits 
—a cast of which is in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons—displays well-worn 
crowns of the second true molar. The skull is described at page 128. The mandible 
holds two teeth, which seem to contain a ridge formula of x 16 x each. The disks of 
the latter are very narrow, without any crimping of their machscrides; but on comparing 
the crowns of the upper and lower molars, it seems to me, unless the specimens represent 
a rare abnormality or deformity in the upper molars, that the maxillary teeth, as will be 
observed in the sequel, do not belong to the jaws, indeed, it may be questionable if the 
mandible is that of the same individual as the owner of the cranium. 3 
1 ‘ F. A. Sival.,’ pi. xiii a, fig. 3 ; ‘ Pal. Mem.,’ vol. i, p. 439. 
2 Davies’ supplementary note to “ Pleistocene Mammals dredged off the Eastern Coast,” ‘ Geol. Mag.,' 
vol. v (1878), p. 443. 
3 I may observe that this cranium was presented to the College as being the skull of E. antiquus, 
which it certainly is not. 
