ELEPHAS ANTIQUUS.—DENTITION. 
177 
There are in the Norwich Museum two fragmentary specimens of molars of the broad 
crowns of E. antiquus besides those described in p. 32. I refer especially to two lower 
last molars, Nos. 19 and 20 of Miss A. Gurney’s Collection. These two teeth belonged 
evidently to the same individual, but are unfortunately not quite entire. They were dug 
out of the Eorest Bed, Bacton, and are covered with pebbles cemented to their crown 
and sides. The right molar has only two ridges invaded with a loss behind of several 
ridges. The crown is much arcuated, as in the Corton teeth, and holds x 18 in 12 inches, 
with a maximum breadth of 4 inches, and has five ridges in 4 inches. 
The height of the eighth colline is 8 inches. The digitations, as in the Corton teeth, 
are large and numerous, and rival completely anything of the kind found in the teeth 
of E- meridionalis, at all events as met with in British strata. 
The resemblances between the crowns of the above and other specimens of the broad- 
crowned variety of E. antiquus and the same tooth in E. primigenius I candidly admit are 
striking; indeed, a comparison between the teeth from the Eorest Bed referred to the 
latter, and the foregoing, as shown in Pis. XX and XXI, complicates the inquiry. Mr. 
Gunn, E.G.S., long habituated to the discrimination of the Eorest Bed remains, has 
frequently pointed out to me these resemblances in specimens in the Norwich Museum, 
and were it not from the evidence I have adduced of the connection between the broad- 
crowned variety of E. antiquus and typical molars of that species at p. 31, I feel bound 
to state that these similitudes between teeth of E. antiquus and E. primigenius are very 
close indeed. But, on the other hand, when, as I have shown from abundant material, 
the narrow, thick-plated, and broad crown of molars of E. antiquus can be clearly 
differentiated among the vast numbers of specimens which have come under my notice, 
I am constrained to believe that the three varieties belong to one species. That there 
was any intercourse between the Mammoth and E. antiquus in Pliocene or Post-Pliocene 
we have no proof whatever, and no precedent to establish such a belief, and consequently, 
after a lengthened and careful survey of the remains of the British fossil Elephants, I feel 
justified in placing the molars just described with those of E. antiquus and the allied 
teeth described at p. 32. 
The thick-plated tooth which puzzled Ealconer at first, and caused him to correlate it 
with E. priscus, of Goidfuss, until further instances showed it to be only a variety of E. 
antiquus, and of the broad and thick-plated crown, described at p. 33, is further illustrated 
by two noteworthy examples I have examined lately. They were dug up on Whittlesea 
Mere, Cambridgeshire, and are now in the Museum of Zoology, Cambridge University- 
These two lower molars are not quite entire, but evidently belonged to the same individual. 
The more perfect specimen holds thirteen plates in as many inches; as far as characters 
and dimensions extend, they are quite undistinguishable from their colossal companion, just 
referred to, from Culham, near Oxford, the enamel being also deeply crimped, with the 
usual central expansions and angulations of the crown of E. antiquus. For comparison 
with these interesting molars there is a portion of a mandible from Whittlesea, in the 
