BRITISH FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 
126 
The last true molar of the Asiatic Elephant attains not unfrequently to the maximum 
limit of that of the Mammoth, but I have not seen an entire tooth with a lower ridge 
formula than x 20 x, whilst the average is about x 22 x. Indeed, although the Asiatic 
Elephant goes hand-in-hand in all its leading characters with the Mammoth, it maintains 
more regular averages of the various members of the dental series than the latter. 
The affinities, therefore, between the ridge formulae of the Mammoth and the Asiatic 
Elephant are of the most intimate character, and there seems a close relationship in that 
respect between the last and E. Armeniacus and E. Columhi, which are apparently closely 
correlated, not only as regards the ridge formulae, but also the morphological characters of 
their grinders. Dr. Falconer was impressed with the relationship between the former and 
the Asiatic Elephant, but considered the latter Elephant to be “ between JE. antiquus and 
JE. Indie us.” 1 I must observe, after repeated comparisons of the dental materials of 
JE. Armeniacus and E. Columhi, available in the British Museum and Royal College of 
Surgeons, with those of E. Asiaticus, E. primigenius, E. antiquus, E. Namadicus, and 
E. Hysudri cus, that I fail to distinguish distinctive characters of any value between the 
molars of the Asiatic and the so-called Columbian or American and the Armenian 
Elephants ; so that, as far as teeth are concerned, the existing species may be the survivor 
of an Elephant whose fossil remains have turned up in Italy (?), Turkey in Asia, and 
throughout the temperate regions of North America. 
The last molar of E. antiquus, especially the broad-crowned variety, might be mis¬ 
taken for that of the Mammoth, and the same might be said of the E. meridionalis; and 
although the ridge formulae might not be of assistance as regards the diagnosis with 
reference to the two former, still, in entire specimens and in crowns sufficiently detrited to 
show the pattern, I can scarcely conceive that in practised hands there would be much 
difficulty with reference to E. meridionalis. The lower ridge formula of the latter, 
apparently rarely rising above seventeen ridges altogether, with the massive proportions 
of the crown constituents, and its absence, with doubtful exceptions, from the deposits in 
which Mammoth remains are found, render its molars of easier distinction. 
The ridge formula of the Mammoth, according to the latest differentiations made by 
Falconer, stood thus after eliminating talons : 
Milk Molars. True Molars. 
4 8 12 12 16 24 
He maintained a theory that these figures were expressive of the usual number of 
plates in the six molars. Now, were the above in any ways general, their use as 
exponents of the ridge formula of the species would at all events be of taxonomial value. 
But from the data here furnished this must appear questionable, and I have no hesita¬ 
tion in stating that, were the collections on the Continent of Europe carefully examined, 
the range of the ridges in each member of the series might be further extended. 
1 Op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 447 and 214. 
' 
