170 
BRITISH FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 
Tarsus. 
Astragalus. —1. The posterior border is more even, and the posterior internal angle less 
pronounced in the African and the gigantic bones from East Anglia (PI. XIX, fig. 6) 
than in the Mammoth (fig. 5) and Asiatic Elephant, which are similar in these respects. 
2. The tibial aspect is usually more concave from side to side in the Mammoth and 
Asiatic than in the African and the enormous bones from the Forest Bed. 
3. The navicular facet is seemingly not so convex in the Mammoth (fig. 5) and 
E. meridionalis (fig. C) as in the Asiatic, in which it is more prominent than in the 
African ; the same appertains to the peroneal facet. 
4. The calcaneal facets present striking characters; the dividing pit is much broader 
m the Mammoth (fig. 5) and Asiatic than in the African and the large bones from the 
Forest Bed (fig. 6), where the articular surfaces are always completely isolated by a deep 
valley running tortuously across the surface. 
5. In X meridionalis (fig. 6) the articular surfaces are more even than in the 
Mammoth and the two recent species, the inner being crescentic and the outer quadri¬ 
lateral, as seen in fig. 5, whilst in E. meridionalis (fig. G) the former is triangular and the 
latter has the inner border more tortuous. 
The early ossification of the bones makes it difficult to pronounce on the age of an 
individual. But generally a large astragal of the Mammoth may be about 5’5 inches in 
the antero-posterior and lateral directions. The small specimen from Ilford (fig. 5) 
has a tibial facet of only 4• 5 X 4*5 inches. 
Another astragal from the Shandon Cave, Waterford, belonging probably to the 
individual which owned the axis, dorsal vertebrae, and other bones already noticed, is 
preserved in the Museum of Science and Art, Dublin. It is 3'8 in the a. p. d. diameter 
by 5‘3 in width, the navicular facet is 4'6 in width by 2'5 in height, whilst the calcaneal 
(outer) is 3‘2 X 2'3, and the inner 33 X l'S inches. These measurements, however, 
refer to what must have been a rather small individual, as proven, also, by the teeth and 
bones. 
Calcaneum.— The observations on this element of the hind foot of E. antiques at 
page 64 appears to hold good after a more extended examination of specimens. The 
only point I observe deserving of further notice is that the upper surface of the heel, 
generally narrow in E. Asiaticus and E. primigenius (Plate XIX, fig. 1), and round in 
70Sh, E. Africanus, appears to be occasionally also round in E. antiquus, as seen in fig. 2. 
It is invariably broad in E. meridionalis. The dorsal surface of the heel may therefore he 
subject to individual variability, and can scarcely be accepted as diagnostic of species. 
The E. Africanus shows a relatively larger cuboidal facet, and a more oblique peroneal, 
and more even astragal facets than E. primigenius and E. Asiaticus. The points of 
distinction between the calcaneum of E. primigenius and E. meridionalis will be noticed 
in the sequel. 
