112 
BRITISH FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 
E. Mnaidriensis} There may be a loss of possibly a ridge or two in front, as the crown 
is detrited to the common base, to about an inch at its anterior extremity, but the scar of 
the anterior fang, recently broken, is seen on the lower surface, showing that the specimen 
is almost entire. 
It holds x 20 x in 8jX2J, and contains eight ridges in 2‘8 inches. The enamel is 
slightly in excess, as compared with PI. XIV, fig. 1, from Millbank, on the Thames. 
The cement having been much denuded from the grinding surface and sides, the 
crimpings of the anterior machgerides of the disks come out in bold relief. There are 
fifteen ridges in wear, and the seven posterior have their digitations still visible. The 
crown is rather arcuated. Such, like very small grinders, are extremely suggestive, as 
showing, in comparison with the colossal teeth described at p. 114 and elsewhere, how 
very much the Mammoth varied in size; as I have stated was the case also with E. antiquus 
and the Maltese dwarf species. Two other ultimate molars from the above locality 
(Kirby) are of the same small dimensions, to wit, Nos. 30 and 40. The former is of the 
left side, and is also an upper tooth. It is less perfect than fig. 1, but it holds 20 x 
in only 6|x2| inches, and contains eight ridges in 2J inches. This tooth is clearly 
much smaller than the foregoing, and from the void in front appears to have held more 
than one plate; so that, supposing it had contained two or three additional ridges, it 
would have scarcely been as large as the last molar of the dwarf Elephas Mnaidriensis, 
shown in pi. xii, fig. 1, vol. ix, of the ‘ Transactions of the Zoological Society of London.’ 
Indeed, it may be well said that “ there were dwarf Mammoths as well as dwarf Maltese 
Elephants.” At the same time, that larger individuals sojourned in the same locality 
with the above is shown by the other molars referred to already, and ultimate molars 
to be noticed presently. 
The same collection contains three molars from Walton-on-the-Naze, Essex. No. 64 
bis holds x 19—-20 x in 11^X3 inches, and is quite a typical crown; the other, 
No. 104, is much bent and very narrow, like that of E. antiquus ; it holds x 20 x in 
12x3. The enamel here is thin and the cement is much in excess, and the machaerides 
are very little crimped. The crown contains eight ridges in 5 inches. 
An upper tooth of large size from Eppelsheim, and holding a; 20 a? in 12x3^ inches, 
is in the National Collection. The plates are not thick for the dimensions of the molar, 
eight being contained in 4 inches. Another, but fragmentary, specimen of a true molar 
from the same locality presents thin enamel, with little intervening cement, and holds 
eight ridges in a space of 3 inches. 
The addition of an extra ridge, or a formula of x 21 x, in upper last molars is repre¬ 
sented by numerous specimens from British and foreign localities. 
1 “Dentition and Osteology of the Maltese Fossil Elephants,” ‘Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond.,’ vol. 
ix, p. 36. I apprehend that last true molars of the largest of the Maltese Elephants attained a length of 
eight inches. Dr. Falconer refers to “a dwarf-sized molar of E. primigenius in the possession of 
Mr. Prestwich from a railway-cutting at Bedford, ‘ Pal. Mem ,’ vol. ii, p. 169. 
