CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS. 
241 
Elephas primigenius. 
The correlation by Falconer of E. Hysudricus, a Miocene form, with E. primigenius 
and other allies in his subgenus Euelephas, on account of similarities in the ridge formula 
of their grinders, indicates an alliance of some kind with the Asiatic Elephant and the 
Mammoth; but this is as much as can be advanced at present. 
The nearest approach to the latter, established by the ridge formula and general 
osteological characters, is presented by the skeleton of the living denizen of Asia. The 
disagreements displayed in the tusks, crown patterns of the grinders, and epidermic 
coverings, are assuredly very pronounced, and require further evidences of relationship 
before one can break down the barrier existing between them, inasmuch as there must 
have been considerable intermediate modifications of these parts in either direction. 
The molars of E. Armeniacus, described by Falconer, and placed by him as inter¬ 
mediate in character between the Mammoth and the Asiatic Elephant, 1 present assuredly 
broader crowns than ordinarily appertain to the grinders of the latter. Consequently, 
this is one step towards the union of the two; otherwise the Armenian form, as far as the 
specimens in the British Museum are concerned, have failed in my hands, after repeated 
comparisons, to show any appreciable differences between them and grinders of the 
Asiatic Elephant. Indeed, should the Italian specimens, 2 referred to by Falconer, turn 
out identical with the Armenian molars, it might be a matter for speculation whether or 
not we should look to the evolvement of the Mammoth from E. Asiaticus, rather than the 
opposite. The plaited enamel of the living species has numerous homologies among 
fossil teeth of the Sewalik Elephants, whereas the typical molar of the Mammoth stands 
widely apart from any Eastern form. 
The grinders of Eleplias Columbi, Falconer, 3 represented by the specimens in the 
British Museum and the Royal College of Surgeons of England, occupy a similar position 
to the Mammoth’s grinders met with in North America as do those of the Asiatic and 
Armenian Elephants to the teeth of that form found in Europe and boreal Asia. More¬ 
over, the extreme breadth of the crowns of certain molars of E. Columbi —and there 
seems to be considerable variability—are in keeping with that of the Armenian Elephant/ 
from which it would be difficidt to make out any differences of importance. In North 
America we find the Mammoth’s remains restricted to the Arctic and temperate regions, 
whilst the plaited tooth of E. Columbi predominates in the more southern and warm, 
temperate climates. Again, in Asia the thin-plated molar of the Mammoth is restricted 
to Siberia, whilst the fluted enamel of the disc is repeated in the living denizen of sub¬ 
tropical Asia. 
1 Op. cit., vol. ii, p. 247. 
3 Op. cit., vol. ii, p. 249. 
3 Op. cit., vol. ii, p. 219. 
4 Falconer, ‘Nat. His. Review,’ 1863, plates i and ii. Same reduced, ‘ Pal. Mem.,’ vol. ii, plate x. 
