ELEPHAS MERIDIONALS.—CARPUS. 
219 
A still smaller bone, No. 33,415, B. M., from the East Coast, is 6 x 5*8 in breadth, 
and 3'5 inches in thickness. The characters are not quite so much pronounced, but indeed 
the lunare furnishes little of a reliable character for diagnostic purposes, and like many of 
the other bones can only be doubtfully referred to E. meridionalis . 
Cuneiforme. —The largest specimen from the Norfolk Coast I have seen, and 
certainly of colossal dimensions, is No. 156 of the Gunn Collection. The following are 
its dimensions: 
Length 10 inches . 1 
Maximum breadth 6 inches. 
Ulnar aspect 4 (a. p. d.) by 6f inches. 
Unciform aspect 6x7 inches. 
Thickness 4 inches. 
The lunare facets are well developed. 
No. 159 of the above Collection, from the same locality, is 1\- X 6 inches. Ulnar 
facet 4 X 5f, and the unciform 6x5 inches ; thickness 3^ inches. Here the lunare 
facets are also well developed, and the pisiform facet is quite erect and triangular. 
A smaller bone, No. 63 of Mr. Savin’s Collection, found at Overstrand, Cromer, is 
7x5^; ulnar facet 4 X 5 \; thickness 3 inches. 
These cuneiformes have been already referred to 2 in comparison with similar bones 
of the Mammoth. They show no very distinct characters from the latter, but differ 
from the African species. 
With reference to E antiqwus, it will be seen that the admeasurements of this bone 3 
rival the largest of the above specimens, otherwise I can see no characters sufficient to 
separate them. 
The pisiforme is not represented in any collections examined by me. 
Trapezium. —The specimen, No. 33,418, B. M., from East Anglia (PL XIX, fig. 10), 
has been already described 4 in connection with what appears to be the equivalent bones 
in E.primigenius and E. antiquus (figs. 8 and 9 ). 5 
The differences between the three seem pronounced; and, unless subject to variability, 
this element is diagnostic of the three species. 
Trapesoidale. —This bone, referred to 6 in connection with the Mammoth, is represented 
1 Nesti records an Italian cuneiforme of much smaller length, and somewhat greater width, being 
O'158 by O' 155 m. in width. 
2 Page 160. 
5 Page 60. 
4 Page 161. 
5 None of these seemingly, as regards size, can compare with this bone in the E. meridionalis of 
Northern Italy. Nesti, ‘ Nuov. Giorn. de Literat.,’ No. 24, p. 194, assigns a length of 0'240 m. or 9'4 
inches to one specimen. 
6 Page 161. 
