188 
BRITISH FOSSIL ELEPHANTS. 
Second or Penultimate Milk-Molar. 
The specimens described by Falconer as illustrative of this molar deserve notice. 
Having examined and compared them carefully with equivalent teeth of allied species, 1 
do not quite agree with the diagnosis established by him. 
No. 4, Norwich Museum, is stated by Falconer to belong to the upper jaw. 1 2 
This I am unable to endorse, as the specimen is so much altered from rolling on the 
beach that the original contour is completely lost, and therefore it would be difficult to 
say to which jaw it originally belonged. Neither in its ridge formula x 6 x, nor 
dimensions 2'6 X L'4 inches, nor in the relations between the crown constituents, are 
there any confirmatory evidencies to assign it to any particular species. It can therefore 
scarcely be accepted as diagnostic of the second milk-tooth of E. meridionalis. 
No. 6, Norwich Museum, is figured and described by Falconer. 3 This tooth, no 
doubt, is from the lower jaw. The dimensions are 3 X 1'4 inches, and the ridge formula 
x 6 x. The crown is unusually broad to length. There are, however, mesial expansions 
of the discs, angulations, and crimpings of the machaerides, which are more in keeping 
with E. antiquus. Its large size is its best recommendation, but it appears to me 
hazardous to accept it as a tooth of E. meridionalis, excepting on the score of dimensions. 
The fragment of a right ramus and its detached crown, No. 214, Gunn Collection, 
Norwich Museum, holding an entire second milk-molar in situ (PL XXII, figs. 3 and 3 a), 
present the following characters:—This tooth is 3X 1 ^ inches in its greatest breadth, 
and holds a ridge formula of x 6 x. 
Although a label by Dr. Falconer is attached to the jaw, and records its position in 
the dental series in his own handwriting, I cannot find a reference to it in his works. 
The crown pattern, as far as the sculpturing of the enamel is concerned, is of no value, 
seeing that the machaerides show crimping ; but the excess of cement, large dimensions, 
and the fragment of jaw are certainly in favour of its belonging to the E. meridionalis, 
or else to a huge individual of E. antiquus. 
As regards the ramus, there is a small pit in front of the tooth, evidently the remains 
of the socket of the ante-penultimate molar. The reclination of the dip of the diasteme 
is also a character of some importance ; it is 4 inches in length. The thickness of the jaw, 
which is 3 inches in breadth at the heel of the molar, and the height of the ramus, which 
is 3f inches in front of the tooth, indicate greater proportions than generally prevails in 
the Mammoth, and, at all events, in the Post-glacial specimens of E. antiquus met with 
in British strata. 
A left lower molar, in Mr. Fitch’s Collection, from the “ Freshwater deposits ” at 
“ Mundesley,” holds x 6 x in 2|xl| inches. The crown is commencing wear, and 
1 Op. eit., vol. ii, p. 133. 
2 ‘F. A. S.,’ pi. xiv b, figs. 3, 3 a; ‘ Pal. Mem.,’ vol. ii, p. 134. 
