GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF DUBLIN". 
85 
of a fossil tooth, for which the Society is indebted for its exhibition this 
evening to the kindness of my friend, Mr. Tufnell, who, in a letter to 
the Eev. Professor Haughton, has given the following particulars:— 
“ I procured the fossil tooth at Kurnaul (among many other remains of 
deer and different animals), which is situated in Upper India, at about se¬ 
venty miles from the foot of the Himalayas, and those fossils were obtained 
in an excavation which Sir Proby Cautley had made through that dis¬ 
trict, of which it is the most important public work, being well known 
as the Doab Canal.” 
Before entering upon the identification of the specimen, it maybe advi¬ 
sable to observe that, according to Dr. Falconer, Mastodon and Elephas are 
Proboscidean genera, so closely allied, as to require for the determination 
of their several species scarcely any reference to the general character of 
their comparative osteology, the method of diagnosis which he adopts 
being solely dependent upon the distinctive characters which the teeth 
and jaws present. I may further allude to Dr. Falconer’s method of 
subdividing the before-mentioned genera, to the latter of which he at¬ 
tributes three subgenera; namely, first Stegodon , comprising the species 
Cliftii, bomhifrons, Ganesa (?), and insignis. It is through this subgenus, 
by its species Cliftii as a link, that Dr. Falconer thinks the genus Ele¬ 
phas remerges into the genus Mastodon. To the second subgenus, Lox- 
odon , of which the African Elephant is the living type, the species 
planifrons , meridionalis, priscus, and Afrieanus are allotted; while the 
third subgenus, termed Euelephas, comprises the living Asiatic or true 
Elephant, the species Hysudricus, antiquus , JVamadicus, Columbi , Indi- 
cus, Armenimm , and primigenius. 
It is to the subgenus Loxodon I would refer the specimen under con- 
deration, and I have little hesitation in identifying it as belonging to the 
species planifrons. The longitudinal axial clefts interruptedly dividing 
the plates of enamel, their number and- circular dilatation in the middle, 
with their proportional vertical elongation and cuneiform shape, as also 
the relations existing between the three dental constituents, with the mo¬ 
derate crenulation of the enamelled edges of the plates, indicate, I should 
say with certainty, the species to which I have referred. Though it is 
a point of comparatively minor importance, it were to be wished that 
the definition of the infradental foramina had been less obscure, and 
had the symphysis which connects this portion of inferior maxillary 
bone with the left ramus been attached, I should have been better 
pleased. I may also mention, as an additional means of identification, 
that the fossa between the coronary and alveolar apophyses corresponds 
in width to that of the Loxodon planifrons , as represented in Cautley and 
Falconer’s beautiful illustrations (“ Fauna Antiqua SivalensisLon¬ 
don, 1846). 
The importance of identification of such specimens as that before us 
will appear, whether we regard the comparative neglect into which the 
subject has fallen, or the poverty, I regret to say, of our public collec¬ 
tions in this city with respect to remains of this class, not only fossil, but 
recent; and though I feel that I am unable to direct your attention to 
vol. v.— peoc. soc. x 
