Cuvier Researches om Fossil Hones.

=

Fig. 3. 49. L.

BLEPHANTS. IPL-XI.

Londo Henderson 2 Od teeiley.

Fig lL "eI.

epee YO) Fi uosaapUayy 9 CUQuUey

ee B ———— I a a re IRE a pee i i “pao QUssay UO SaYaLvaSTT” S ADIN)

Cuviers Researches on Fosstl Hones.

fs Bedi meee

Ds, AY Pia

ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF THE ELEPHANT.

and of the Molares of the Indian Elephant.

293

From the head of the ele-

phant of Ceylon ........... XVI. ll 0,200] 0,162 0,058 A separate tooth belonging

to the Cabinet of the Acade-

my Gf Sciences .......: +. XVI. 10 | 0.180} 0,114} 0,064 Interior tocth of the female

skeleton of the Cabinet...... XV. 9 0,210} 0,150] 0,086 Postericr tooth of thesame | xv. 0 3260) 0,083 Of the great skeleton of

Migokmass ooectease . 2-1: XIV. 7 | 0,177} 0,102} 0,060 Of the skeleton of Dente.

j ET Bee Sie EA Ret aa aan pee it XIV 8 = — == A separate tooth, belonging

to the Cabinet,........ XIV. 7 0,145 | 0,090| 0,045 A separate head of the fe-

male skeleton of Mookna .. XIV. 5 0,155! 0,085} 0,055 Another separate tooth, be-

longing to the Cabinet .... 0,120| 0,045 | 0,045 A oe ae 0,150} 0,092} 0,060 VOL. I Bef: * DD

4

294 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

A Comparative Table of the Fossil Molares,

Pe aa a TR a Sh

Total |Number Length : : i Number of Total of the . Fossil Grinders. of Plates | Length.| Plate Width. Plates. | Worn. Worn. cl ne i UPPER. Origin unknown ; belong- ing to the Old Academy of SGiencesy ao Hee Ne XII. 1} 0,183 | 0,183 | 0,100 From the Museum of Pisa | 1x. 9 0,138 | 0,188] 0,065 From Fovent; very young, and very much worn ...... VII. 7 0,055 | 0,055] 0,035

LOWER.

From the Ourcg Canal .. | xxiv.| 22 0,245 | 0,247] 0,089

Origin unknown; white, : earthy, broken in two places.. | xxiv.| 12 0,265 | 0,142| 0,085

Probably from Siberia ; brown, very little altered, of a blacksshtiteiais cre. ie sex. 11 | 0,250 | 0,160} 0,070

From Fovent; yellow, earthy,

four broken behind ........ LK. 15 0,230 | 0,190] 0,080 Probably from Siberia ; ting- ed-black ovo! 2 ce pe ana XVIII. 18 0,178 | 0,178] 0,088 From a lower jaw found mean WOlopMe oh... + <2 XVIII. 13 0,230) 0,180] 0,075

Found at Villebertin, in a gravel bank ; preserved in the Museum of M. Petit Radel.. | xviii. 14 0,275 | 00,1765 0,094

ON THE FOSSIL BONES QF THE ELEPHANT. 295

and of the Molares of the Indian Elephant.

Total |Number Length : iy Number of Total | ofthe | Ee ears. of Plates | Length. | Plates | prt Piates. | Worn. Worn. Upper. | Another separate tooth, be- jonging to the Cabinet .... XI, 10 | 90,150; 0,125 | 0,065 Anterior of the skeleton of iBentelaher ss. 23. Ue bi etal stake TX 9 0,080 | 0,080) 0,057 The anterior of the sepa- rate head of Mookna ...... Vil. 7 0,078 | 0,078! 0,055 The anterior of the skeleton SuMoOoknay 2. oss hae es VII. v] 0,075 | 0,075) 0,060 Tooth of a very young ele- phant, Daub., No. 1019 and ED BLAD tate eet a VII. 7 0,055 | 0,055 | 0,080 Lower. Posterior tooth of the ske- leton of the Museum....... XXIV. 9 0,225 | 0,100) 0,074 Ofa desu stony Ceylon, from the Museum of M. Camper.. | xx1r. — O70) —— — Separate tooth in the Mu- seum of ae” ey sawed. Bese ic Sy ee Ree pee: ce — O31) — 00,070 ’ From a jaw of Ceylon, in the Cabinet of M. Camper... | xvir. | — | 0,190} — —

pDbv2

296

@N THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS,

A Comparative Table of the Fossil Molares,

Fossil Grinders.

Lower.

From Vienne, department of the Isere, y M. Guilher- min. a From a small j cae from ‘the neighbourhood of Cologne. .

Found at a depth of ten feet, in asand bed near the Hospital of the Salpétriére. .

From a fossil jaw from Si- beria, in the Cabinet of M. Camper. . :

From a jaw rar Saiecial a in the Cabinet of M. Camper ..

Origin unknown; grey above, brown below, broken in the middle, but in other respects in good preservation.

From the neighbourhood of Vienne in Dauphine ; peat ed by M. Polonceau. .

From Porentruy.......

Anterior tooth of a * jaw from the Vicentin. . :

From a jaw of Monte- Verde

CHOC eC nme) SO tear Cy wage

Total |Number Length Number of Total | of the . of | Plates | Length.| Plates wi Plates. | Worn. Worn. XV 15 0,170} 0,170} 0,082 XIV ll 0,125} 0,088 | 0,056 xu. | 13 | 0,184} 0,134] 0,067. XIII. — 0,160); — — XI — 0,140; — — dts 4) 0,200 | 0,153 | 0,068 | IX. 9 0,190} 0,190} 0,085 TO. 9 0,185 | 0,185 | 0,090 vur. | 8 | 0,163| 0,163! 0,090 VIII. 8 0,186} 0,186 | 0,083

2. Comparison of the Tusks.

We are unable to ascertain with precision, whether or not there existed the same differences between the fossil and the Indian ele- phant, with regard to the tusks of the different sexes, and the different varieties, as the fossil tusks are in general found isolated, andas a suf- - ficient number of perfect skulls have not been discovered, to enable us to say whether or not there were adults without long tusks.

; ‘ ; : 6 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF THE ELEPHANT. 297

ani of the Molares of the Indian Elephant.

STII vn rT nnn nnn ne nen ean

Total |Number | Length 2 lanes anes Numbe of Total | of the ‘ LTTE TEESE Ne ; Plates |Length. | Plates bag Plates. | Worn. Worn. Lower. Head of the skeleton of Moolknage niece secs eto XV. 10 0,230; 0,156) 0,065 Separate head of Mookna XV. 8 | 0,205] 0,110} 0,055 Separate tooth from the Cabinet of M. Faujas ...... XIV. 12 0,200} 0,158} 0,054 From the skeleton of Den- | telah. . ASA, rahe Sete a XIII. 12 0,182} — | 0,060 Separate tooth of the Ca- A binet of Anatomy.......... | XUI. 13 | 0,192] 0,192 | 0,065

Tooth of a separate head of

Dentelah, Ceylon XII. 10 | 0,240} 0,215} 0,065

ee ee we we

Anterior tooth of the fe-

male skeleton of the Museum 0,185} 0,185 | 0,075

Neither can we arrive at a perfect knowledge of the limits of the fossil tusks in point of smallness. The smaller have been much less carefully preserved, as they did not so much excite the attention of the workmen.

But we have an accurate knowledge of their limits in point of large- ness. The larger have not been neglected ; and those who have de- scribed them have not been tempted to diminish their size.

I annex a table which I have drawn up, of the largest fossil tusks, the dimensions of which have been given. By this it will be observed, that they are not vastly superior to those of living elephants—at least of those of the African species.

Moreover, we may cbserve that if the elephant were permitted to exist in the wild state, during the natural period of its existence, its tusks, measuring from year to year, would attain to a size still more considerable than that wer most commonly distinguishes them.

298

ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

Length m - _ Authors | Details of the Tusks. | ing the consulted. great curve, | Length ‘i | of the { No. vepxcvr; |Trunk, from Siberia ; | truncated in front | 5’ 4” No. DCDXCIV; fromSiberia; trun- ai | cated at both ends | 5’ vol. wae No. pcpxciv; from Siberia; trun- cated at both ends | 3’4" } No. Depvecir; { truncated at both | [pends i. NOOB! Tusk from the | environs of Rome, found by MM. La Faujas, | Rochefoucauld & Geol. ~ Desmarets; very 293. much truncated at both ends and bro- ken into three pIeces hee ese | 5” | Tusk found at | | Serbaro, by For- | Fortis | tis, and the Count | .. 2 de Gazola; trun- | io | catedat both ends, | pierced 2 infil- | (trations. . Soh nQanig? Tusk from Si- | Cand bet from theCa- | binet of Camper... | 5” and P more. First tusk of Zach. ¢ Burgtonna . | 87 Second Idem ..| 197 fae ( Largest Siberian Gua | tusk in the Mu- Pees % seum of Peters- Sai bourg; truncated | 473. Lat both ends. | 8”

Diame- | ter at the thick

end.

6” and at the other end 5” Aue

Ad 8/7 and at the other end 4” Qu 10” at both ends 9” 9// and 1 10’” at the other end.

to 10@

6”

Weight.

lb. oz.

89 4

415

6’” at the

Observations.

It has been es- timated that if it were entire, it would be fourteen feet in length; but it is difficult to ascertain its length, as the di- minution of the diameter is not always uniform.

other end 6” 4”

ON THE FOSSIL BONES. OF THE ELEPHANT.

299

Length |:_., Authors ; Pa a ae Weicht . eonetea: Details of the Tusks. Re Huet eRion eight, Observations. curve. end. SENN Largest tusk of Auten- J Canstadt, very rieth & ) muchcurved,trun- | - : Jeeger. (cated at both ends | 5’ 6” | 5’ at | — other Reiseland Spleiss end 3” | speak of one of... |10’ ae oh Thelargest,found Natter.< in the same place ie veUS”. Fe) 187 1’ 7 Messer- { schmidt i A tusk very & Brey. 4 much curved,from Bile | Siberia...) | (7 18467"! 6 1371, Trans. 1 BY 10 p, p- 49. | Apoth. Tile. [ sius, | Mem. | Tusks of the of | skeleton of Mr. Peters-% Adams, from the | __, bourg, | drawings ...... | 14 7 et vy, pl. F 10. ie A tusk observed Adams.¢ at Iakoutsk .... | 15’ 8” 8” | lb. Mr. Adams says 234 |two toises and a half, but does not — Her- A tusk suspend- say what toises ; mann, ) edin theCathedral neither does he Prog. ) ofStrasbourg,very say whether he peeul: “(much curved!) )*'|'6!77.3%9//7). =='4| has: / taken. those dimensions, or Id.Let- f Idem fromWen- merely gives them ters. Wachee chien 4” 10” | 5” 6””| — | from memory.

300 ON THE. FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

With regard to the grain (or texture) we have seen already that it is precisely similar in all species ; and that in this particular, the teeth of the mastodon are not distinguishable from those of the elephant.

Hence, it only remains for us to make a comparison between their CUIVES.

Many of the fossil tusks have a very common curve ; those for instance in our Museum: those of Thiede, and most of those of Canstadt: But there are many of them whose curves are much more decided than is commonly observable in the tusks of living elephants. It ap- proaches to a semicircle, or the halfof an ellipse, divided by its smaller axis.

There are descriptions extant of four of this sort: that of Messer- schmidt, in the Philosophical Transactions; that of the Cathedral of Strasbourg, according to Hermann; that of the Church of Halle in Souabe, according to Hoffmann and Beyschlag; and that of the Museum of Stuttgart, according to Autenrieth and Jeger. This striking resemblance between four of the most perfect fossil tusks ex- tant-is well worthy of observation. The curve is still more decided in the tusks of the skeleton of Mr. Adams, which form an almost perfect circle or ellipse. The points of the latter terminate by again retreat- ing backwards, and even by growing downwards a little, while they take an external direction, so that these tusks could not have been used by the animal for the usual purposes of tusks, which is to pierce or raise up bodies with their points.

Some writers have fancied that this more decided curve afforded suf- ficient grounds for supposing a distinct species; but we may be satis- fied with attributing it to the length of the particular tusks in which it has been observed, and to the age of the individual animals.

As part of the tusk never changes after it has been once formed, if this part is not perfectly straight, every additional increase of length will be an increase in the number of the degrees of the circle that it describes. ‘Thus it is that the incisive teeth of rabbits, where the cor- responding teeth are broken, curl up ina spiral form.

Nevertheless, it is worthy of observation, that an African tusk pre- served in our Museum, although six feet in length, is not by any means so much curved as the four I have just cited.

Moreover, we may remark that in the case of very old living elephants, the tusks grow blunt at the point in proportion to their pro- longation from the root; this is visible in the old skull of plate 18. But perhaps the fossil elephant had not so much occasion for the use of his tusks as the elephant of our times.

There are also some fossil tusks twisted into the shape of worm- screws, as is sometimes the case with those of living animals. Pallas cites one belonging to the Museum of Petersbourg*. There is another, though not so much twisted, in the Museum of Stockholm, a drawing of which has been forwarded to me by the kindness of M. Quensel.

Thus it is clear that tusks cannot be made use of to establish any

* Nov. Com., pl. xiii, p. 473.

ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF THE ELEPHANT. 301

certain characteristic, either between the living species or between those and the fossil species.

3. Comparison of the Skulls.

The skull of the elephant is too cellular, the bony plates of which it is composed are too delicate, to admit of its preservation in the fossil state. Hence it-is that mnumerable fragments of it are found; but there are but false instances on record, of skulls being found in such a state of preservation as to admit of the determination of their characters; and to their number we have only to add that of the entire skeleton of Mr. Adams, represented in plate 17.

The three first of these isolated skulls belong to the Academy of Petersbourg *. The best of them was found on the banks of the Indig- hirska, in the most eastern and the coldest region of Siberia, by that learned and enterprising naturalist of Dantzic, Messerschmidt +, who gave a drawing of it to his companion Breynius. The latter caused an engraving of it to be annexed to a memoir, which he inserted in the Philosophical Transactions { ; and until the appearance of the work of Mr. Adams, this was the sole document extant on that part of the ske- leton of the fossil elephant.

I have given a copy of the figure of Breynius in my plate 8, figure 1, in juxtaposition with those of Africa and India. I have had them all three reduced to nearly the same scale, to facilitate the comparison of their formation. We may perceive at the first glance, that both in the skull and the teeth, the fossil elephant bears a much stronger resem- blance to the Indian than to the Asiatic elephant.

Unfortunately the drawing is not quite accurate enough for an exact comparison, and it is not executed on a well determined projection. The part of the articulating surfaces, the condyle of the lower jaws, and the anterior edge of the hollow of the temple and the orbit, are somewhat obliquely seen in the back, while the occiput and the mo- lares are in rigorous profile.

Nevertheless, a striking difference in the respective length of the articulating surfaces of the tusks is plainly perceptible. It is three times greater than that observed in the skulls of India or Africa of the same dimensions, and the prolonged triturating surface of the molares, instead of meeting the alveolar edges, would intersect the tube of the socket at the third part of its length.

This difference becomes the more important from the circumstance of its agreement with the form of the lower jaw, as we shall see farther on; and as we have before observed, it necessitated a difference of for- mation in the trunk of the fossil elephant ; for either the junction of the muscles of the trunk were the same, that is, above the nose and the lower edge of the sockets of the tusks—and in that case the base of that organ was three times thicker in our living elephants—or else the fastenings of the muscles were different ; and in that case it follows more decidedly, that the entire structure must have been different. If

* Pallas’ Nov. Comment. ac. Petrop., xiii, p. 472. + Idem, Ibidem. ~ Vol. xl, No. 446, plates 1 and 2.

302 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

we can place implicit reliance upon the drawing, we shall further find that, lst. The zygomatic arch is differently constracted.

2dly. That the post orbital apophysis of the frontal is longer, more pointed, and more hooked.

3dly. That the tuberosity of the lachrymal bone is much thicker and more salient.

Upon examining this drawing of Messerschmidt, and joining the differences it offered to those I had myself observed in the lower jaws and molar teeth, I no longer entertained a doubt of the fossil ele- phants being of a different species from that of India.

This idea, which I announced at the Institute, in the month of Ja- nuary, 1796, (see the Memoirs of the Institute, 1st Class, vol. ii, page 20), opened to me anew train of reasoning on the theory of the earth ; a hasty glance at other fossils led me to form presumptions of all that I have since discovered to be true, and determined me upon devoting myself to the long researches and assiduous labours in which I have now consumed one-and-twenty years.

Here then I feel bound to acknowledge, that it is to this engraving, which had in some measure lain forgotten for sixty years in the Philo- sophical Transactions, that I am indebted for what I look upon as the most valuable of my works.

But I did not shut my eyes to the fact, that the characters which I had observed required the confirmation of some other specimen, to take them out of the class of individuals and exceptions ; and spite of their correspondence with those of the lower jaws, I was anxious to meet with the drawing of another skull. I addressed myself to the Imperial Academy of Sciences at Petersbourg; and that illustrious body, of which I have now the honour of being a member, acceded to my request with a generosity worthy of the company who have proved themselves so instrumental in forwarding the progress of the sciences.

The Academy submitted to my inspection a superb coloured drawing as large as life, of another fossil skull belonging to its collection, which had been found in Siberia. They sent with it the drawing of a lower jaw, and those of the skull of a fossil rhinoceros in two positions.

This drawing, after long delays, occasioned by the political disputes between the two countries, reached me at the moment when I was giving the finishing stroke to the first edition of this work.

I should find it difficult to describe the delight I experienced, upon finding in it the confirmation of all that I had learned from the exami- nation of that of Messerschmidt.

The skull which has been used as a model, is not quite so perfect. Part of the articulating surfaces of the jaws, as well as the centre portion of the zygomatic arch, are wanting.

But it is not deficient in any of the characteristics ; it has the same length and the same direction of the articulating surfaces ; the same tuberosity in the ilachrymal bone, and the same general outline; every thing, in a word, demonstrates that the fossil skulls, as far as we know anything of them, partake of the same characteristics.

I have taken pains to have this splendid drawing carefully engraved in plate 14, fig. 2, at a sixth of its real size, and the original is at

present exhibited in the King’s Museum.

ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF THE ELEPHANT. 303

Since my first edition, I have had an opportunity of observing the same characters in a fossil skull in its natural state, at Florence. It is that mentioned by Mesny, which, after having belonged to the late Fontana, is at present in the possession of the Count Valsamachi of Cephalonia. I have given figures of it at one eighth of its natural size, plate 15, figs. 1 and 2.

Although the entire neck and sutures are wanting, the articulations, and their correspondence in size and position with the upper jaw, are plainly discernible, and a correct estimate of their great length may be formed.

More recently still, | have found these long articulating surfaces in a skull found on the banks of the Wolga, engraved by M. Tilesius, a copy of which is given at plate 15, fig. 7.

True it is that this character is not discoverable in the great skeleton of Mr, Adams ; but Tilesius states in positive terms, that the inhabit- ants of Tongousa had disfigured the edges of the sockets, in tearing out the tusks; and that, in addition to this, Mr. Adams had levelled the edges in his attempt to replace them *.

Neither does the skull found in the Necker, near Manheim, which ! have before mentioned on the authority of Keissler and Merk, and which I have copied, plate 15, fig. 12, afford us sufficient grounds for judging of the length of the sockets, as their edges appear to have been much mutilated; but as this skull is only known through the medium of a bad engraving, no available conclusion can be drawn from it.

A difference which is grounded upon specimens more numerous than those of the sockets, and which likewise agree with those of the jaw, is the parcllalism of the molares. —

M. Jeger has most positively assured me of this, in reference to a portion of the skull belonging to the Cabinet of Stuttgart, the engra- ving of which may be seen at plate 10, fig. 4. Another portion, en- graved by Peter Camper, exhibits a character almost precisely simi- lart. [have caused a copy of his figure to be taken (plate 10, fig. 3), and I have placed beside it (figs. 1 and 2), those of the skulls of India and Africa viewed from above, in order the better to exhibit the much more strongly marked convergence of the molares in front.

The base of the skull of M. de Valsamachi, which I give, plate 15, fig. 2, presents an almost equal parallelism. It is true that in the skull of Manheim, the molares appear to approach each other towards the front; but I have already had occasion to remark, that the figure is too inac- curate to be made use of as an authority.

We have in our Museum a portion of the occiput and temporal ofa fossil elephant, brought from Siberia by the astronomer, Delisle (Dau- benton’s Natural History, vol. xi, No. pepixxxvii1.), which has given me an opportunity of comparing those parts with greater exactness than the others, of which Ihad nothing more than drawings; but I could only find a few unimportant differences in them. I have, nevertheless, given

* Memoirs of the Academy of Petersburgh, vol. v, 1815, p. 511. ; ‘+ Memoirs of Haarlem, plate 23.

3804 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACH YDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS,

an engraving of the posterior surface, plate 10, fig. 7, and of its late- ral surface, plate 10, fig. 8. This specimen formed part of an elephant about ten feet in height.

In order to facilitate the means of an exact comparison between the skulls of the three species, I shall hereunto annex a comparative table of their dimensions in the specimens which have been placed at my disposal.

FOSSIL SKULLS. (ee

Skull of Skull of the} Messer- Academy of} schmidt, | Skullofthe| Skull of Petersbourg| Philosophi-|Skeleton of | Count Mus- measured | cal Trans- |Mr. Adams.| Sin Pusch-

by the actions, kin, Drawing. | vol. xl, plate 1. pl. 14 pl. 8 1. 15. fig. 2 fig. ¥ yf Bee ae Vin From the summit to the edge of the sockets ..... 1,18 1,178 1,300 1,168 From the summit to the edge of the bones of the nose ... 0,6 =— — - 0,496 From the Saree to the occipital condyles ...... —_— 0,663 0,770 — From the condyles to the alveolar edges ...... 0,93 — 0,946 pan Distance of the condyles — = — ned Greatest width of the skullsee oss se — 0,868 — — Distance of the two apophyses behind the orbit _— _ —- 0,712 From a skeleton...... — — 3,431 — or ten feet and a half.

4, Comparison of the Lower Jaws.

The lower fossil jaws, found separately, and at immense distances from the skulls of Siberia; for instance, those found on the banks of the Rhine and in Lombardy, have presented us with characteristics, which those of the skulls had led us to anticipate.

ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF THE ELEPHANT. 304

It follows from this, that the skulls to which these jaws belonged must have been similar to those of Siberia; and that the characteristics of the latter were not simply individual differences, but belonged to the whole fossil species.

The following are the characteristics presented by the lower jaws :—

1st.—The Indian and African species have their lower teeth con-

nN Ug Bs Sl esl Ne AE OR SS SO ee INDIAN SKULLS. AFRICAN SKULLS.

a aun Gal ‘

Skull ofa middle- aged | Skull of Skull of } sicuit of |SeParate|Another | Indian |a young

Teeth. Teeth. | Teeth. | ing to |Brookes. M. Corse. | ped: pl. 8. pl. 18 | pl. 18 fig. 1 fig. 2. fig. 3 |fig. 1&2 0,885 | 0,806| 0,713] 0,64] 1,092| 0,438] 0,731 | 0,59 0,437| 0,433) 0,344 | 0,374} 0,480) 0,252) 0,296 | 0,255 0,49 | 0,49| 0,442] 0,366] 0,606) 0,171] 0,438 | 0,395 0,805 | 0,755} 0,703 | 0,676} 0,882| 0,435| 0,822 | 0,626 0,65 | 0,614} 0,52) 0,512; — — 0,551 } 0,551 0,673 | 0,654| 0,515| 0,463} — | 0,288} 0,532 | 0,463 0,51} 0,455} 0,413] 0,36) — | 0,249} 0,480 | 0,405 2,880 2,630 8 feet| — — —_ _— — 8 feet — 10 one inch

inches

verging forwards, like the upper ; whence it follows that the canal hol- lowed out in the centre at the anterior part of the jaw is long and narrow.

The fossil jaws have their teeth almost parallel, like the skulls.

306 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

Hence, the canal is much wider in proportion to the total length of the jaw ; but then, 2ndly, it is much shorter. ;

In the Indian and African species, as the articulating surfaces of the tusks do not descend below the point of the lower jaw, the latter may advance between the tusks. Hence it is prolonged in a species of pointed apophysis.

In the fossil heads, on the contrary, wherein these articulating sur- faces are much longer, the jaw must necessarily be, if I may be allowed the expression, stunted in front: it could have no other termination.

These two differences must at once strike the eye of every body looking upon the figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, of plate 2, which are all ona scale of one-sixth of their natural size.

Fig. 1, is a jaw of the African species.

Fig. 2, is a jaw belonging to the head of the Indian species, with long tusks, or Dauntelah.

Fig. 3, is a jaw of the great Indian skeleton, with short tusks, or Mooknah.

Figs. 4 and 5, represent the two fossil jaws, found in the neigh- bourhood of Cologne.

In plate 8, figs. 4 and 5, I have given the profile of these two por- tions of fossil jaws, in order that they may be compared with those of the living species, represented in the same plate, figures 2 and 3. I have, moreover, marked with dots a particular jaw, to show how it should be beneath the fossil skull, fig.- 1.

The fossil jaws preserved in the Museum of Darmstadt, of which I have got drawings, and one of which has been represented by Merk, in plate 3 of his second Letter, and another found in a lake in Hungary, presented by Marsigl, and which I have since observed in the Museum of Bologna, have precisely the same characters ; and I have again found them more recently in an enormous half jaw, found at Romag- nano; and in another of minor proportions, found at Monte- Verde, near Rome.

Ihave, moreover, observed them in two specimens in the Museum of the late M. Fontana at Florence, and in four of that of the Grand Duke of Tuscany in the same city; of the latter, two were whole, and two half jaws.

An additional confirmation of those characteristics, as well as of those of the teeth, is to be found in the drawing of a lower jaw, sent by the Academy of Petersbourg, and copied plate 14, fig. 1 ; in that of another jaw of the Museum of that Academy, found on the banks of the Wolga, and presented by M. Tilesius; (1 have given a copy of it, plate 15, fig. 10) ; in the drawing of a third, found at Can- stadt, preserved by an apothecary of Stuttgart, which I represent, plate 17, fig. 2. Nevertheless, I should not omit to state that my learned friend, M. Adrian Camper, is in possession of a jaw from Ceylon, deviating in a considerable degree from those of the living species which I have just mentioned.

Compared with a fossil jaw of equal dimensions, its anterior canal has been found to be wider and much shallower, and the jaws almost as perfectly parallel; while another jaw, also found at Ceylon, has the same canal much narrower than the first.

ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF THE ELEPHANT. 307

This had been announced by M. Camper, in his Anatomical De- scription of the Elephant, page 20; and he has since pointed it out to me at greater length, in two letters addressed to me on this subject. Notwithstanding this individual variation, the teeth of this jaw have the same proportions as those of the living species. While giving me these descriptions, M. Camper further observed, that the fossil jaw, like all others of this species, presents sides more protuberant’ and knotted than those of the Indian species.

_ A stronger objection against the general nature of this difference might have been found in the fossil jaw, represented and described by M. Neste, in the Annals of the Museum of Florence, vol. i, p. 9, and plate 1, figs. 1 and2, of which I have given a copy, plate 15, figs. 5 and 6; but this jaw, besides being knobbed on the side more than that of any other known elephant, hasa lounger and more curved beak. This beak, instead of terminating in a point in front, spreads wider there than at it centre: the holes for the issue of the under maxillary nerve, are one behind the other, as in those of the mastodon, and not one above the other, as in the Indian and fossil elephant. It would indicate a species essentially different from all the others, if it belonged to the elephant ; but as the teeth have fallen out, itis impossible to prove that it belonged to that species; nay, more, from a comparison which I have made be- tween it and some fragments of the jaws of mastodons with narrow teeth, [have no doubt but that the jaw in question must be referred to that species, as I shall hereafter have occasion to show ; consequently, all the arguments sought to be deduced from it against the generality of the characteristic which I ascribe to the lower jaw of the elephant, must fall to the ground.

5. Comparison between the other Fossil Bones.

I. Bones of the Spine.

I have had but three of this description sufficiently perfect.

‘ne fine fossil atlas which I purchased in Tuscany, at Incisa in the valley of the Arno, is represented plate 17, figures3 and 4. Leaving out of consideration its length, which equals 0,507, from one apophy- sis to the other, it differs but little from that of the Indian elephant : it is merely somewhat thicker: it indicates an individual twelve and a half feet in height.

I have seen another vertebra brought from Siberia by the late M. Macquart, professor of medicine at Strasbourg, preserved in the Museum of the Board of Mines: it is the fourth cervical. I find its bulk a little more delicate.in proportion than in the living sub- ject, but it belonged to a young subject,which could not have been more than seven feet high ; and as its transverse apophyses have been de- stroyed, it will not admit of an accurate comparison. I give this specimen, reduced to a sixth of its natural size, plate 11, fig, 14.

A third vertebra which has come under my observation, is a lumbar found on the banks of the Po, and presented to the Museum by the late M. Faujas. It is the second lumbar: it belonged to a subject ten feet anda half high; and such of its partsas have remained entire do not present us with any perceivable difference when compared with those of the living animal. - I give a drawing of it, plate 16, figs. 26 and 27.

308 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

II. Bones of the Extremities.

Most of the large bones of the extremities of the fossil elephant are remarkable for a proportional thickness, exceeding that of the corres- ponding bones of the living animal; but here we must not forget the ingenious remark made by Daubenton, that as animals advance in years, their bones grow thicker in proportion than they grow long: a remark founded upon the neeessary operation of physical causes, and upon the laws which regulate the resistance of solids. This difference alone would not be sufficient to characterise a species; but we fina others, upon acloser examination of the details of the formation each bone.

Ist. The Shoulder Blade.—The fossil shoulder-blades, which I had placed at my disposal in the outset, were not sufficiently entire to be accurately compared with those of the living elephant: however, the fragments of the Museum of Stuttgart, plate 14, figs. 10 and 11, and those of our Museum, plate 13, fig. 6, exhibited a much stronger re- semblance to the Indian than the African elephant.

These specimens merely indicated more massive shapes, and the: articulating surface of the shoulder appeared to have been larger in proportion than in the living elephant. If we were to judge of the form of the fossil shoulder blade by the engraving of the skeleton of Mr. Adams, of which I give a copy, it would have been found to dif- fer exceedingly from that of the living elephant ; but it is quite pal- pable that the drawing has been made on a very limited scale, or else the upper part must have undergone great mutilation. The neck there appears much longer than is warranted by the proportion of the parts ; this is not the case in the fragments I have seen; which, on the con- trary, would give it rather short. Then all the upper part appears compressed. Having learned through the medium of a German Journal, that one of the shoulder-blades of this skeleton was at Berlin, in the Museum of the School of Anatomy, I addressed myself to MM. Lichenstein and Rudolphi, to procure a drawing of it. These learned naturalists have had the politeness to forward it to me, and I give it. reduced to one-twelfth of its natural size, plate 14, fig. 8. The ante- rior edge is fractured; but the general outline is very similar to that of the Asiatic elephant, except that it appears a little broader, parti- cularly in the direction of the neck. The articulating surface, fig. 9, is sensibly wider at its lower extremity, than that of the living elephant. The dimensions of this shoulder-blade are as follows :—

Leneth ofthe spines '¢.6@2:240. 1: ate aa oee 0,67 Distance of the acramion from the point of the

TECURLING APOpPLYSES,.6fe. a7. 241-1 Ploe --e 0,278 Length of the posterior edge,ab..........0 od 0,46 Distance from the posterior angle to the summit of

SING; GC -tuf. te dis. lores Seve ee ee er ee 0,643 Distance from the summit to the foot of the articu-

latipes, ‘surfaces. M.2u) nae teil Hepes eee 0,758 Distance from the posterior angle to the tubercule

CoOTacold es,.Aidy | as). wk. Sage oe see ene 0,690 Height of the articulating surface............+.. 0,216 Breadthye se. e's ate tec oe ae 0,112

ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF THE ELEPHANT. ag

We see by the dimensions given in the text of the memoir of M. ‘Tilesius, of the shoulder-blade which remained attached to the skeleton of Petersburg, that the lower head was ten inches English, or 9’, 5/” French, (0,255m.) at its largest diameter, and that there was the same distance between the point of the acromion, and that of the recurring apophyses.

2nd. The Fossil Humerus yields specific characteristics less striking than the shoulder-blade.

That which is preserved in our Museum (plate 7, fig. 4, r), bears a stronger resemblance to the Indian than to the African species ; never- theless, its lower external crest is sensibly shorter in proportion.

The canal of the biceps is also narrower in the fossil than in the

_Indian species. See plate 7, fig. 3, where the upper heads of three humeri are represented.

This fossil humerus, which has come from Casan, and which is men- tioned by Daubenton, is, 0,88 in length, which indicates an indivi- dual only eight feet ten inches in height; and that it was not an adult is plain from the circumstance of the apophysis being still separated. An Indian elephant height feet in height has this bone, 0,80 in length.

We have in the Museum another fossil humerus, differing but little in size from the former, the precise origin of which we are at a loss to uetermine; but an upper head of the same bone, which was dug up in making the canal of the Ourcg, being 0,395, in antero-posterior diameter, must have formed part of an elephant from fifteen to six- teen feet in height.

The humerus of the skeleton discovered by Mr. Adams at the mouth of the Lena, and of which I have given a copy, plate 16, fig. 18, bis, and 14, was 40 inches English, or 3’ 1” 7’” French, (1,18m.)

M.'Targioni Tozzetti, of Florence, is in possession of the head of a thigh 0,34 in width, which must have belonged to an animal twelve feet high.

3rd. The Fore-arm.—We have at present in the Museum a fossil eubitus, which the late M. Faujas brought a few years since from the quarter where it was found on the banks of the Po. We give it plate 16, figs. 15, 16,17: it isalittle more stumpy than that of India, but resembles it in every other particular.

An estimate of the proportions may be fermed by the measures here- unto annexed. The inferior epiphysis is omitted, because it did not form part of the fossil cubitus.

Fossil Tadian African Cubitus. Cubiius. Cubitus. ee tly. che geh el ho oS ORB OS 0,630 0,590 Diameter of the articulation........ 0,183 0,118 0,112 Distance between the anterior surface, and the extremity of the olecranon....| 0,310 0,243 0,228 Length of the olecranon.......... 0,205 0,168 6,140 Breadth of the upper head.:..:..:| 0,256 | 0,186 6,166 Breadth of the superior head...... 0,142 0,138 0,114 Antero-posterior diameter of the lower SRT ON eyes 1:13:56 OR i ads & ON LSS) tet Oude e 0,120

VOL, I. EE

310 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

The Jength of the fossil cubitus indicates an elephant nine feet and a half high.

Ath. The Pelvis.—Peter Camper has published an engraving of the mutilated half of a pelvis, in the twenty-third volume of the Memoirs of the Academy of Haarlem. ‘There is another, likewise very much mutilated, in the Museum of Darmstadt, of which I have given two drawings, plate 13, figs. 1, and 2, on a reduced scale from those sent me by MM. Schleyermacher and Borckhausen. I have placed beside’ them (figs. 3 and 4) two similar views of the pelvis of the Indian elephant Dauntelah. 'To this I have added (plate 16, figs. 1, and 2), figures of the half pelvis which was in the Museum of Amsterdam i in 1811. It is seen from above and from below, and is reduced to a third. The mutilated parts not admitting a comparison, we are reduced to ex- amine the figure of the straight, and that of the oval holes, and of the fossil of the acetabalum, with their respective proportions.

It-would appear that the antero-posterior diameter is larger in pro- portion in the fossil. Its ovalar holes are larger than its cotyloid trenches, while the contrary is the case in the living animal.

Here is a comparative table of the dimensions, taken from the pelvis of Darmstadt.

| Fossil | Indian

jf Pelvis. Pelvis. Diameter of the cotyloid fossal........ oe: 0,135 0,130 Vertrical diameter of the ovalar holes ...... | 0,175 | 0,108 Transverse diameter .....-...- widtctoueverenettc 0,108 0,059 Antero-posterior diameter of the straight. ... | 0,5 0,3 (DAMS VEISeeCIAINGECE cy yer anise: charlene tebe es 2,47 0,32

To judge from the length of the cotyloid fossa, this fossil pelvis must have belonged to an elephant less than eight feet high.

1 do not “find quite the same disproportion i in the specimen given in plate 16, but I there find that that portion of the os ilium which articu- lates with the os sacrum is larger in proportion, and that its internal edge is so shaped as to make it become more parallel with the pupls than is observable in the living elephant.

A portion of the zschium brought from Italy by M. Faujas, has offered me another distinctive characteristic, which I had vainly en- deavoured to discover in his figures, although I have since observed that it is pointed out in that of “Camper. It is a rather deep fossa at the upper surface of the bone, between the edge of the cotyloid fossa and the internal edge of the ischium. I have not been able to dis- cover any traces of a similar one, either in the Indian or African elephant.

This specimen has belonged to an individual twelve feet in height. The half described by Camper, belonged to an animal nme feet and a half high.

5th. The Femur.—The first fossil Femme Rea I had an opportunity of examining (plate 11, fig. 8), and which was found in Siberia (Dau- benton, No. mxxxiv), had its upper part mutilated; but its lower extremity has furnished me with a distinct characteristic, easily observ

ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF THE ELEPHANT. By a

able in its semicircular cut between the two condyles, which is re- duced te 2 narrow line (see fig. 12), instead of being a wide hollow, as may be'seen in the two living species (see figs. 9, and 10). Two other inferior extremities, which may be seenin our Museum (figs. 11 and 13) have precisely the same peculiarity. As soon as I had perceived this marked difference, I felt a curiosity to ascertain if it was common to all the fossil thighs. M. Jeger has demonstrated that it is also found in those of Canstadt, and has sent me the engraving (plate 14, fig. 5), reduced to a sixth. The other engravings of the same part are reduced to a sixth.

I have since discovered this character again in a lower extremity of a thigh kept in the Museum of the Grand Duke of Florence (plate 16, fig. 5) in another kept in the Museum of Ww Targioni Tozzetti, in the ‘same city (ib. fig. 6): in a third, in the Museum of the Roman College _ (ab. fig. 4), ane finally, very recently in the great remnant drawn out of the bog, which fell into the hands of M. Raynand (tb. fig. 7). There is then no doubt of the constancy of this characteristic, and of its form- ing one of those furnished by the skull, for distinguishing the fossil elephant.

Daubenton, who had only compared the femur he described with that of the African elephant, and had found no other difference between them, but a somewhat greater proportional. breadth, attributed this breadth to the age of the animal. And yet this femur formed part of a young elephant, for its lower epiphyses is still distinct, and the upper has been separated and lost.

This bone is 1,11 in length, and indicates an animal about nine feet and ahalfhigh. Our Indian elephant is eight feet high, and his femur is 0,92; but fossil femora have been found much larger in size. Jacob, and Oliger Jacobus, mention some four feet English in length. The longest af those that have been measured with Eee is tliat spoken of by Camper, which was fifty- two inches of the measurement of the Rhine in length, which is equal to four feet two inches French. This would indicate an animal about eleven feet eight inches in height.

The femur of an Indian elephant that died of old age, which was in the possession of the same anatomist, was, as he tells us, thirteen inches less than the former.

Nevertheless, if any reliance is to be placed on the measurements stated in the Gigantomachia, the femur of the pretended teutobochus must have been much larger, as it was five feet in length ; and yet this dimension would only indicate an animal fourteen feet high, which does not surpass the accounts of the size of living elephants in India.

We have in the Museum, the upper head of a femur found at the foot of the Pyrenees, the diameter of which being 0,218, indicates an animal fourteen feet high.

The lower extremity ofthe femur found in the bog (plate 16, figs. 7, 8, 9, 10), marks an animal between fourteen and fifteen feet in height.

The lower head (plate 11, fig. 11), belonged to an animal but ‘ten feet in height.

6th. The Leg-—The drawings of a fossil tibia (plate 13, fig.’7, 8, 9) have been sent to me by M. Jaa eger, and are taken from some of the specimens of the Museum of Stuttgart. This bone indicates an animal

OBEN

:

312 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS,

from eleven to twelve feet high. It is evidently much thicker than the tibia of the Indian elephant (plate 13, fig. 11), which is thicker than that of Africa (7b. fig. 13). ‘In other respects, the shape of this bone and the articulating surfaces differ but slightly from the three species.

I have seen another tibia quite entire at Florence, which I give plate 16, figs. 12 and 13. It bears the same characters of thickness as the preceding. Its length being thirty inches French, indicates an animal eleven feet and a half in height.

The Gigantomachia gives a tibia’ of the pretended fentobee ane four feet long, the femur being five feet. The length of the tibia is evidently exaggerated, or else the two benes must have belonged to different animals. It would indicate an individual above eighteen feet in height, and would not correspond with the femur, which could only have be- longed to an animal fourteen feet in height,

The length of the femur of our Indian elephant, which is eight feet high, is 0,92, and of the tibia, 0,56.

‘Of the fibula I could find nothing more than the lower extremity. It was found at Montferrat, and presented by M. Spinola. It is re- presented with its internal articulating surface, plate 16, fig. 11. It is 0,137 in length, and formed part of an animal fifteen feet in height. Its shape is more rounded, its edges are more blunted, the little fossa in the centre of its articulation is deeper than in the living elephant.

7th. The Forefoot.—As less attention was always bestowed on ~ collecting the smaller than the larger bones, for some time I could find nothing more belonging to the forefoot but a metacarpal bone of the little toe. For this I was indebted to M. Deluc. This also is larger in preportion than that of the Indian elephant, and indicates an animal from nine to ten feet high. But during the course of my travels in Italy, as well as among the specimens found in France, and those sent to me from other eauntrics: I have had the opportunity of observ- ing many other bones of this description.

Plate 16, fig. 24, isa metacarpal of the left annular, found with a a lower jaw at Romagnano. It is 0,224 in length, and 0,105 in thick- ness at the top, and indicates an animal fourteen feet in height. The external portion of its upper extremity is larger in proportion than in the living elephant.

Figure 23 of the same plate, is a metacarpal of the annular of the medius, found in the valley of the Arno, and preserved in the Museum of M.‘largioni Tozzetti. The external. part of the upper surface is there also much larger than in the living animal, in proportion to the other parts ; itis 0,20 in length, and formed part of an animal twelve feet in height.

I have had an opportunity of observing two semi-lunars of the car- pes. One of them, the left, of an animal of the midde size, was sent to our Museum from the neighbourhood of Abbeville, by M. Baillon. I give an engraving of it, plate 16, fig. 22. It is 0,064 in length, and 0,117 in breadth.

The second was larger, and from the right side (plate 16, fig. 18) it is 0,:62 broid, and 0, 104 1 loag, and is at present in the Museum of M. Pargioni, at Florence. I find them much shorter from front to rear, than in the living elephant. Moreover, that of Florence has its body

ON THE FOSSIL: BONES OF THE ELEPHANT. Sls

less straight towards the back part; in that of Abbeville, on the con- trary, it is straighter, and the bone is flatter, as if it had been crushed.

The right os cuneiforme (plate 16, fig. 19) is also from the Museum of Targioni: it is 0.234 in breadth, and 0,081 in height. It differs but little from that of the living elephant, if we except the circumstance of its posterior articulating surface being rectangular, while ia the living subject it wears the shape of a triangle.

The right os cuneiforme (plate 16, fig. 20), also from the same Museum, is 0,144 in breadth, and 0,127 inheight. It is smaller than that of the living elephant, its upper surface is more square, the planes of its lower surface are more decided. ~

I also discovered in the same Museum, an os trapezoide (plate 16, fig. 21), 0,146 broad, and 0,124 high. It differs from that of the living animal, by a somewhat greater length in the upper surface, and a some- what greater breadth in the lateral surface.

These four bones have belonged to elephants of nearly the same height, and possibly may have belonged to the same animal, which in that case might have been about fourteen feet and a half high.

Although each of these bones of the carpus, taken seperately, differs in some respects from the corresponding one of the living animal with which I have compared it, and as these bones vary according to certain degrees from the living animal to the other, J do not attach much im- portance to the characters which they furnish,

Sth. The Hind-foot.—Of all the bones composing the hind-foot of the fossil elephant, I have only had the opportunity of examining the astragalus. M. Miot, formerly French Ambassador in Tuscany, has had the kindness to send me one, which he picked up in the valley of. the Arno. I have given an engraving of it, plate 7, fig. 2, Fr, and close to it, two others belonging to living elephants. Besides its size, it is distinguishable at the first glance by the angles of its tibial surface, which approach more nearly to a right line, while the surface itself is more square. ‘This character is not more individual than the others.

A portion of an astragalus, from the Museum of Stuttgart, a draw- ing of which has been sent me by M. Jeger (plate 14, fig. 4), is similar to that of the valley of the Arno. They are both of the same size, and formed part of an individual from ten to eleven feet in height.

I have not been fortunate enough to procure any other bone be- longing to the hind leg of this animal.

6.—On what is known of the soft parts.

By continuing the researches in the coldest regions of Siberia, hopes might still be entertained of discovering a mawmoth with all its soft parts preserved by the ice; and even at the present time, that of Mr. Adams furnishes us with most precious information on this subject.

Previous to its being cut, a drawing of it was taken, a copy of which has been transmitted to me. Although a little rough in execution, it corresponds entirely in the length of the face with the indications of fossil skulls; the trunk and the head were wanting, but a kind of reddish bristles were visible all round it. I have since

314 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

received a morsel of the skin, from which the epidermis had beer peeled off, and some locks of wool and strong hair.

The skin is similar to that of the living elephant, but I could not distinguish the brown spots, which may be observed in the skin of the Indian species. Mr. Adams assures us that the skin, three quarters of which he had preserved, was of a deep grey colour.

With regard to the hair, it is of two, and even of three sorts; the longest are from twelve to fifteen inches in length; they are of a brown colour, and equal in thickness the hairs of a horse’s mane. The shorter hairs are from nine to ten inches in length; they are finer, and of a reddish colour.

The wool, which seems to have garnished the roots of the long hair, is from four to five inches in length. It is very fiue, rather soft, and somewhat frizzled, particularly near its roots. Its colour is a deep red.

The coarse hair upon the remains of the skin at Petersburg is worn and short ; but as no animal that we know of has the same description of hair, it is impossible there can be the slightest fraud in this par- ticular. Moreover, besides the evidence of this individual, we have the evidence relative to those of Sarytschev and Patapof, which we have noticed in a former passage. Consequently there cannot be the slightest doubt as to the fact, that the fossil elephant, such as it is. found in Siberia, had a covering adapted to a cold climate.

Mr. Adams tells us that one of the ears of his subject was in good preservation, and garnished with a tuft of coarse hair, but im its present state, such as it appears (plate 17, a 4, fig. 1), it is very much altered, and has not a single hair remaining,

The feet of the Petersburg skeleton are still covered with skin, and have their soles still remaining. M. Tilesius tells us that these soles are rounded, and in a manner dilated and spread by the weight of the body, so that they curve back again over the edges of the feet, and cover them. ‘There was something similar in the elephant of the menagerie of Versailles, described by M. Perrault. Neither Mr. Adams nor Tilesius specify the number of nails.

SECTION Ii. GENERAL SUMMARY OF THE FIRST CHAPTER.

It follows then from all these researches and all these comparisons, that

The elephant with a rounded skull, large ears, jaw-teeth marked with lozenges on their crowns, which we qualify as the African elephant” (elephas Africanus), is a quadruped exclusively inhabiting Africa. -

We know for certain that it is this species which inhabits the Cape, Senegal, and Guinea; we have reason to believe that it is also to be found along the Mosambique ; but we cannot state it as a positive fact that there are not in the same places some animals of the following species :— :

We have not had an opportunity of seeing, drawing, or comparing a sufficient number of individuals, to enable us te ascertain whether

ON THE FOSSIL BONKES OF THE ELEPHANT. 315

or not this species presents us with some remarkable varieties. It is this species which yields the largest tusks.

They are of the same length in both sexes, at least in Senegal.

The usual number of nails is four before and three behind.

The ear is immense, and covers the shoulder.

The colour of the skin is a deep brown, and this colour is uniform.

This species has not been tamed in modern times: however, it appears to have been tamed by the ancients, who attributed to it less strength and courage in this state, than to the species we are about to mention; but their observations seem to want confirmation, at least in the particulars relating to the size of this animal.

We are not thoroughly acquainted with its habits; but as far as we are able to judge of them from the accounts of travellers, they are in all essential particulars similar to those of the following species .—

‘The elephant with an elongated skull, concave forehead, small ears, jaw-teeth marked with undulating ribands, which we call the Indian elephant (elephas Indicus) is a quadruped which has not been observed with certainty, except beyond the Indus.

It inhabits the country stretching from either bank of the Ganges to the eastern ocean and the south of China; it is also found in the islands of the Indiar ocean, at Ceylon, Java, Borneo, and Sumatra, &c.

There is as yet no proof extant of its being found in any part of Africa, neither is the contrary proved to a demonstration.

As the Indians have been from time immemorial in the habit, of ‘taking and taming this species of elephant, it has been much better observed than any other.

Varieties have been noticed in the size and symmetry of its form, in the length and direction of its tusks, and in the colours of the skin.

The females, and many of the males, have short straight tusks.

The tusks of the males in general do not reach the great length of those of the African species.

The usual number of nails is five before and four behind.

The ear is small, and frequently angular.

The colour of the skin is most commonly grey spotted with brown. Some are found quite white.

Their height varies from eight to fifteen and sixteen feet.

Its habits, and the manner of taking and training it, have been carefully described by a multitude of travellers and naturalists, from Aristotle down to M. Corse.

The elephant with an elongated skull, concave forehead, very: long articulating surfaces to its tusks, obiuse lower jaw, jaw- -teeth large, parallel, and marked with ribands more close, which we call the fossil elephant (elephas primigenius, Blumenbach) is the mammoth of the Russians.

Its bones are only to be found in the fossil state. None have as yet been seen in a fresh state, corresponding in characters with those by which this species is particularly distinguished, nor have the bones of the two preceding species been discovered i in the fossil state.

Its bones are found in great quantities in many countries, but in a higher state of preservation in the north than elsewhere.

It bears a stronger resemblance to the Indian than to the African

316 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

species. From the former, however, it is found to differ in its jaw- teeth, in the shape of the lower jaw, and of many other bones, but par- ticularly in the length of the articulations of its tusks.

This last characteristic must necessarily produce a peculiar modifi- cation in the shape and organization of the trunk, and give it an appearance very different from that of the Indian species—a difference which the resemblance of the rest of their bones might not have led us to expect.

It would appear that these tusks were in general large, often more or less arched in a spiral form, and directed outwards. There is no proof of their differing much with regard to sex or breed. The height of this species was not much beyond that to which the Indian species may attain: it would appear that its form was in general shorter and thicker.

It is quite clear, from the remains of its bones, that it was a species differmg more from that of India, than the ass differs from the horse, or the jackal and the isitis from the wolf and the fox.

We have not been able to ascertain the size of its ears, or the colour of its skin, but it is certain that at least a portion of the species had two sorts of hair, viz. a reddish wool, thick and tufted and coarse hair, stiff and black, which grew long enough on the neck and spine to form a sort of mane.

Thus, not only is there nothing impossible in its being able to support a climate which would prove destructive to the Indian species, but it is even probable that it was so constituted as to prefer the colder climates.

Its bones are commonly found in the moveable and superficial strata of the earth, and more frequently in the deposits of inundations, which cover the bottoms of the vallies, or which skirt the beds of rivers.

In these places they are scarcely ever found alone, but are found confusedly intermixed with the bones of. other quadrupeds of species well known to us—such as the rhineceros, the ox, the antelope, the stag, the horse, and frequently with those of marine animals, such as shell-fish, part of which had adhered to them.

The positive testimony of Pallas, as well as that of Fortis and many others, does not allow us to doubt of the frequent occurrence of this latter circumstance, although it has not been universally observed. [ have this moment beneath my eyes a portion of a jaw encrusted with millepords and small oysters.

The beds of earth which cover these elephant bones are not of any very considerable thickness, and are scarcely ever found to be of a stony nature. The bones are seldom petrified, and there are but one or twe instances on record of their being found embedded in stone, shells, or other similar bodies; most frequently they are only accompanied by our common fresh-water shells; the similarity existing with regard to the latter particular, as well as with regard to the nature of the soil of the three places, of which we have the most detailed accounts—viz. Tenna, Canstadt, and the forest of Bondy, is also very remarkable. Everything then weuld seem to concur in indicating that the cause w en has led to their interment is one which has most recently contributed to change the surface of the globe.

~ i aed ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF THE ELEPHANT. 317

It would further appear that this cause is physical and general : the bones of fossil elephants are found in too great quantities, and in too many deserted and almost uninhabited countries, to allow us to give a moment’s credit to the presumption that they could have been brought thither by the instrumentality of man.

Both the layers containing them, and those lying above them, show us at once that this cause was aqueous, or that it was the waters that covered them ; and in several places these waters were almost the same as those of our sea, as they gave nourishment to living creatures, resembling in almost every particular those which inhabit it at present.

But it was not these waters which have transported them to the places where they are found at present. These bones have been dis- covered in almost every country which has been visited and examined by naturalists. An irruption of the sea, which would have merely carried them from those places which are at present inhabited by the Indian elephant, could not have borne them to quarters so rene or have dispersed them so evenly:

Again, the inundation which buried them did not rise above the ereat chains of mountains, as its layers of deposits which cover these bones are only found in plains of very inconsiderable elevation. - Hence it is dificult to form an idea of the manner in which these skeletons of elephants could have been transported to the north, over the mountains of Thibet, and the chains of the Altai, and the Ourals.

Moreover, these bones have not been wern ; they still preserve their edges and apophyses. They had not been worn by friction: very frequently the epiphyses of those which had not attained their full growth were still adhering to them, although the slightest violence was sufficient to remove them; the only remarkable alteration which has taken place in them arises from the decomposition which they have undergone by remaining in the earth.

Nor have we a greater show of reason in favour of the presumption that these entire skeletons could have been transported by violence. For it is indeed true, that if that were the case, the bones would have remained unimpaired, but they would have remained heaped together, and could not have been scattered.

In addition to tbis, the shells, the millepord, and other marine pro- ductions which have become attached to some of these bones, are a sufficient proof that they must have remained for at least a certain time at the bottom of the liquid substance which covered them.

It is clear, then, that the bones of elephants were in those places where they are at present found, when they were overtaken and covered by the liquid. They were scattered about there, as we may observe is the case with the bones of horses and of the other animals inhabiting our own country, whose skeletons are lying here and there in the fields.

Everything, then, tends to favour the extreme probability of the supposition, that the elephants which have furnished these fossil bones were natives and inhabitants of the countries in which their bones are found at the present day.

Hence, they could not have disappeared but by a revolution which at once destroyed all the animals existing at the period, or by a

318 ON. THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

change of climate, which prevented them from propagating. But whatever that cause may have been, it must have been sudden.

The perfect preservation of the bones and ivory found on the plains of Siberia, is eutirely attributable to the circumstance of their being congealed by the frost, which in general arrests the action of the elements upon them. If this frost had only overtaken them by degrees, these bones, and more particularly the soft parts with which they are sometimes enveloped, would have had time to become as much decomposed as those which are found in the warm and temperate countries.

Above all, it would have been impossible that the flesh and skin of an entire body, such as that discovered by Mr. Adams, could have been preserved so incorruptibly, if it had not been instantaneously sur- rounded by the ice, which has served to preserve it down to our time. Thus, all the hypotheses of a gradual change in the temperature of the earth, or of a slow variation, either in the inclination or position of the earth’s axis, falls to the ground.

If the present elephants of India were the descendants of those elephants of old, and had escaped into the countries inhabited by them at present, at the period of the catastrophe which destroyed them elsewhere, it would be impossible to explain why their species has been destroyed in America, where remains in proof of their existence are still found. The vast empire of Mexico presented them with heights in abundance to escape from an inundation so inconsiderable as that. which we are led to suppose; and the climate is there warmer than is sufficient for their temperament. The divers races of the fossil mastodon, of the hippopotamus, and rhinoceros, lived in the same countries and in the same provinces inhabited by the fossil elephant, as their bones are found in the same layers of earth and in the same state. We cannot possibly conceive a cause which would have de- stroyed the one while it spared the other. Certain it is, however, that the former animals are no longer in existence ; and with regard to them there cannot be the slightest room for dispute, as we shall show in the chapter appropriated to the subject.

Hence, every circumstance concurs in leading us to think that the fossil elephant is, like them, an extinct species, although it bears a stronger resemblance to one of those existing at the present day, and though its extinction has been produced by a sudden cause, by the same great catastrophe which has destroyed the species of the same epoch, the proofs of whose existence we shall find in the succeeding chapters.

Addition. Upon the causes which have buried the Bones of Elephants.

M. Jean André Deluc, son and nephew of the two great men who have rendered the most important services to geology, has published in the Bibliotheque Universelle of Geneva, for February, 1222, page 118, some interesting observations on the state in which the fossil bones of elephants are found lying, and on the causes which have led to their interment. Although these bones are very generally spread

ON THE BONES FOSSIL OF THE ELEPHANT. 319

over Europe and the north of Asia, M. Deluc does not think that the elephant inhabited all these countries at the same time, or that the irruption of the sea which destroyed them was general, single, and instantaneous. ‘“‘ For otherwise,” says he, ‘‘ we cannot explain the circumstance of the shells, and other marine bodies which have become attached to them, nor the layers of marl, sand, &c. in which they are buried—phenomena which would indicate a long stay of the sea.” Hence he supposes that those countries were portioned out into islands of varied extent, and subject to revolutions which made them liable to be covered by the waters of the sea for some time. The bones which are found dispersed are those of animals that died a natural death upon those islands. They are sometimes found in large collections, because the gradual rising of the waters had compelled these animals to herd together on the high places, where they perished ; or it may be that the waters, rushing with impetuosity, may have carried those dispersed bones towards the low grounds. They were then transported by divers means, rolled about and covered by various strata, or mixed with the bones of marine animals. A more general depression having furnished to the waters of the sea a newer and a deeper bed, they abandoned a large part of their ancient bed, and. the islands which remained there became united into a single continent, which is that on which fossil bones are discovered at the present day.’

Thus, according to this author, the bones have not been all buried at the same time. Those to which marine bodies have adhered, or which have been found accompanied by them, must be accounted among those most anciently covered ; those, on the contrary, which have preserved the whole or a part of their flesh, must have been the victims: ef the last revolutions. Nay, perhaps Mr. Adams’ elephant was never overwhelmed, and only perished by the sudden change of climate resulting from these revolutions.

These hypotheses, which the author acknowledges are an exposition of the theories of his uncle, do not appear to me to contain any thing contrary to the general ideas which I have expressed, both in the chapter on elephants, and in my preliminary discourse.

Nevertheless, I am not of opinion that there is sufficient proof of a change of climate. The elephants and rhinoceroses of Siberia were: covered with thick hair, and were as capable of enduring the cold as as the bears and the argalis; and the forests covering the country at. the very high latitudes, might furnish them with more than sufficient nourishment.

CHAPTER II.

ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON.

Yue mastodon is not only the largest, and the most enormous im appearance of all the fossil elephants, but it is moreover the first which has served to convince naturalists of the possibility of there being extinct species: the monstrous size of the jaw-teeth, the formidable tuberosities with which they are bristling, could not in effect have failed to excite attention; and it was very easy to ascertain with cer- tainty that none of the large animals known to us have teeth of the same form and size. Thus, although Daubenton was for some time of opinion that part of them might have belonged to the hippopotamus*, he was not slow in recurring to a more enlightened view of the sub- ject ; and Buffon declared soon after, “‘ that every thing induces us to think that that ancient species, which must be regarded as the first and the largest of all terrestrial animals, only existed in the first ages of the world, and has never come down to our times}.’? However, he did not extend his assertion beyond the large lower teeth, and con- tinued to consider the intermediate teeth, and those half worn, as belonging to the hippopotamus{. He also persevered in attributing to: the elephant the large thigh found in the same place with those teeth, as Daubenton had done in 1762§, although William Hunter had shown, as early as 1767||, that this thigh, as well as the teeth and lower jaw, presented palpable differences from those of the corres- ponding parts of the elephant.

The last mentioned naturalist has on his part fallen into a twofold inistake, which has led to the improper denominations since applied to that animal. He imagined that the mammoth of Siberia, whose bones he had never seen, was identical with the mammoth of North America]; and although he was afterwards refuted by Pallas, who proved clearly, as we have already seen, that the mammoth is a real elephant, the English and Americans have persevered in perverting the meaning of the word mammoth, by applying it to the mastodon—a practice in which they have been followed by all who have spoken about the latter animal.

The next error introduced by Hunter is, that the pretended mam- moth must have been, from the structure of its teeth, a carnivorous animal of a species unknown; although Camper had already rejected that idea. As it rendered this animal still more wonderful, it has

* Natural History, vol. xii, in 4to, page 73, No. mcvi. + Epochs of Nature, note 9.

+ Tbid. idem.

§ Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences, 1762.

\| Philoschhical Transactions, vol. lviii, page 42.

4 Philosophical Transactions, page 38.

ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF THE MASTODON. 321

been almost generally adopted, and has procured for the mastodon the denomination of carnivorous elephant—less suited to it if possible than . that of mammoth.

From that time the compilers have incessantly confounded the mam- . moth of Siberia with the pretended mammoth of America, and accounts the most intricate and confused have been the consequence of this mis- take. This it is which now leads me to propose a new generic name for the fcssil animal of America, to replace these false denominations of mammoth and carnivorous elephant, which are only calculated to con- vey ideas diametrically opposed to the reality.

This measure is the more called for, as we shall soon have reason to observe, that, according to the rules at present generally received in zoology, this animal must be considered as forming a particular genus, comprehending several other species.

I have borrowed the name of mastodon from two Greek words, sig- nifying teeth with papille ; and, consequently, expressing the principal character of this genus *.

But it is only by a long course of labours, reflexions, and compari- sons, that I have been enabled to arrive at the more accurate infor- mation which I have now collected on this subject. ‘he better part of a century has been spent in amassing it.

The first mention made of the subject, dates from 1712. Dr. Mather, in a Letter to Dr. Woodward (Philosophical Transactions, vol. xxix, p. 62), tells us that some bones and teeth of a monstrous size had been discovered in 1705, at Albany in New England, now in the state of New York, near the river Hudson. .

He believed them to, be the bones of giants, and as tending to con- firm the statements of Genesis, of the existence of ancient races of giants. Nevertheless, it does not appear that this announcement was attended with any great consequence, for these bones were forgotten for nearly thirty years.

In 1739, a French officer, named Longueil, was sailing up the Ohio to reach the Mississippi, when some savages of his escort found at a little distance from the river, on the borders of a morass, somes bones, jaw-teeth, and tusks. In the following year, this same officer con- veyed a thigh, the extremity of a tusk, and three jaw-teeth to Paris, where they are still preserved. They are the first specimens of the bones of this animal that were seen in Europe, and from the place in which they were found, they have generally been known as the animal, the elephant, and the mammoth of the Ohio ; although these bones have been found in several other places, as we shall soon have occasion to observe.

The femur and the tusk were declared by Daubenton to belong to the elephant, aud the jaw-teeth to the hippopotamus. ‘ For there is not the slightest reason for suspecting,” continued he, “that these teeth and the tusk have been extracted from the same head; or that they can have formed part of tue same skeleton with the femur last mentioned ; such a supposition must necessarily lead us to infer the existence of an unknown animal, with tusks similar to those of the elephant, and molar

* Macros (mamilla) and Cfous (dens).

322 oN THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

teeth similar to those of the hippopotamus *.” He expatiated at still greater length, on the reasons which he supposed were conclusive against the existence of such an animal, in a Memoir read to the Aca- demy on the 8th of August, 1762.

Nevertheless, the contrary opinion was already entertained by many learned men. Another French officer, named Fabry, communicated to Buffon, in 1748, that the savages looked upon these bones, which are found scattered over various districts of Canada and Louisiana, as be- longing te a particular animal, which they called the Father of the oxen.

The massy teeth, with from eight to ten denticuli, which could not reasonably be confounded with those of the hippopotamus, were well known at that period. Guttard published an engraving of one of them in the Memoirs of the Academy for 1752. It was found with several other bones in a morass, forming the bottom of a gorge between two mountains, and doubtless it is one of those brought home by Longueil and his companions. Itis the first drawing of a tooth belonging to that species which has been published.

The English having been declared masters of Canada by the treaty of 1763, were not slow in giving a new impulse to the prosecution of these discoveries. In 1765, George Croghan, the geographer, found a quantity of these bones in the country now called Kentucky, four miles to the south-east of the banks of the Ohio. They were on an elevated bank, also bordering on an extensive salt marsh, probably the same visited by the companions of Longueil; the tuberous teeth and the tusks were there intermixed without a single elephant’s jaw, which served as an additional confirmation of the existence of a peculiar animal. ;

In 1767, Mr. Croghan sent several cases of these remains to London, directed to Lord Shelbourne, Franklin, and others ; and Collinson sent one of the large teeth to Buffon, and published an account of the whole collection in the fifty-seventh volume of the Transactions. He too attributed these tusks to the elephant.

Among the pieces sent by Mr. Croghan, was the half of a lower jaw, at present deposited in the British Museum. It is the same described by William Hunter, in the Philosophical Transactions for 1768} .

He made use of it to demonstrate that the animal in question, while palpably differing from the elephant, had nothing in common with the hippopotamus, and he stated in direct terms, his conviction that the tusks found with these teeth belonged to that animal. But Buffon does not appear to have been aware of the existence of that memoir, and does not make the slightest allusion to it in the edition of his Epochs of Nature, printed in 1775.

In this latter work, Buffon was the first to advance the assertion that these teeth with from eight to ten denticuli were also to be found on the old Continent. He published engravings of one of them given him by

* Natural History, vol. xi, Description of the King’s Museum, MXXXV. + Epochs of Nature, pl. iv and y. t Vol. lvili, quoted as above.

ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF THE MASTODON. 323

the Count of Vergennes in 1770, and-said to have been found in Little Tartary, while the inhabitants were opening a trench. Itis one of the largest that has ever been found ; it weighs eleven pounds four ounces ;

a second, which was preserved in the Museum of the Abbé Chappe, and pohch was supposed to have been found in Siberia, was represented im his third plate : they are both in our Museum.

Pallas made a similar announcement in 1777, with regard to the teeth with six denticuli. He published an engraving of one found in the Ouralian mountains *.

From a consideration of these three pieces, | have long entertained the opinion that our large mastodon must have been an inhabitant of the-old Continent also; but I am free to confess, that beg unable to find during the course of my long researches, any: other specimen which did not comefrom America, I re-examined the question, and felt very great doubts on the subject. The Abbé Chappe had spent some time in California, and might have preserved in his collection, some specimens which he had not found himself; and I cannot find in any direction, any positive proof of his having brought from Siberia the tooth re- ceived from him by the Museum. That which has been engraved by Pallas, after a careful comparison, is found to resemble the mastodon With narrow teeth, as much as the great mastodon. In fine, what se- curity have we that Vergennes was not deceived with regard to the large jaw, which he gave to Buffon? I repeat again, I do not wish al- together to invalidate these three proofs ; but I begin to think they are. not sufficient.

At the same epoch, and in the same volume of the Academy of Petersburg for 1777, p. 219, Camper again showed that the American animal with large tuberous teeth bore a stronger resemblance to the elephant than to the hippopotamus ; and that it was very probable that it had a trunk, and that in no case could it have been considered to have been carnivorous. ‘This was an important step made towards the knowledge of our mastodon; but the great anatomist to whom we are indebted for it, soon made one of a retrograde description.

A considerable portion of a skull, with some other bones, were found by Dr. Brown, in 1785, and exposed to the public curiosity in the gal- lery of paintings of Mr. Charles Wilson Peale at Philadelphia, to whom they suggested the idea of the splendid Museum of Natural History which he has since called into existence.

M. Michaélis, professor at Marbourg, having procured drawings as large as life of these bones, showed them to Camper, who taking that part of the palate where the teeth approach each other, for the anterior part, considered the pterygoid apophyses as intermaxillary bones; and consequently he could find no place for the tusks.

Hence in 1788, he made a declaration (Nov. Act. Petrop., vol. ii, p. 259) that he had been deceived ; that the animal of Ohio had a pointed snout and no tusk; that it did not bear any resemblance to the elephant; and that for his part, he was at a loss to comprehend its real nature.

It would appear that M. Michaélis had also advanced this opinion in

* Acta. Petrop. 1777, part ii, p. 213, tab. ix.

324 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

two essays, which I have not been able to procure, but which are in- serted in the Gottingen Magazine of Literature and Science.

M. Autenrieth, professor at ‘Tubingue, having had the kindness to send me copies of these same drawings, explained them to me quite differently, and in accordance with their real situation; but spite of any great respect for the penetration of this learned man, to whom I have been bound by the closest bonds of friendship from my boyhood, the authority of Camper was sufficient to leave some doubts still remaining.

In this emergency, I addressed myself to the son of that celebrated anatomist, M. Adrian Camper, as being the better qualified to enlighten me on the subject, as his illustrious father, a short time previous to his death, had acquired possession of the identical specimens which had been the original of the drawing which had caused so much em- barrassment.

That accomplished philosopher, whose loss has been severely felt by the cultivators of natural history and anatomy, at first supported the opinion of his father, with a zeal well becoming the memory of so great a man ; but after fresh objections on my part, and a fresh examination on his, he wrote to me in the following terms on the 14th of June, 1800: —‘ The result of my researches on the unknown animal of Ohio, is not conformable with what I formerly put forward on the subject; the piece in question is not the anterior, but the posterior fragment of the jaws.” And he proceeded to demonstrate this proposition by a multi- tude of new and refined arguments drawn from his extensive knowledge of comparative anatomy, which he had acquired under one of the greatest masters that science ever had. M. Adrian Camper has given an account of that discussion in the anatomical description of the elephant by his father, which he published in 1802, p. 22.

But whilst we were thus busying ourselves in Europe, about a few fragments of this animal, Mr. Peale was sedulously employed in col- lecting the bones ; and he was fortunate enough to procure two ske- letons almost entire, which have set the question at rest for ever.

In the spring of 1801, he was informed that in the preceding autumn several large bones had been discovered in digging a mar] pit in the neighbourhood of Newburg, on the river Hudson in the state of New York, and at the distance of sixty miles from the capital. He imme- diately lurried to the spot, accompanied by his sons; and having dis- covered a considerable part of a skeleton in the house of a farmer, he purchased it, and had it conveyed to Philadelphia. There was a skull, whose upper part was very much damaged; the lower jaw was broken, and the tusks mutilated by the awkwardness and hurry of the work- men. ‘To continue the search, it was necessary to wait until the ter- mination of the harvest. It was resumed the following autumn ; the hole was emptied of the water which had collected in it ; pumps were erected to clear it of the water that kept flowing in as they proceeded with the work; no expens2 was spared; but after many weeks’ inces- sant labour, and the discovery of all the vertebra of the neck, many of those of the back of the two shoulder-blades, two humeri, the radius, cubitus, and femur, a tibia, and a fibula, a mutilated pelvis, and some small bones of the feet, «l' lying at a depth of six or seven feet from

ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. 325

the surface. Several of the most important bones were wanting, such as the lower jaw, &c. &c.

With a view to obtain these, Mr. Peale proceeded te a spot on the borders of a small marsh, where some ribs had been found a few years previous. In this place he continued his excavations for fifteen days, and collected several different species, but not one of those he was peculiarly anxious to obtain.

Despairing of success, he was on the point of withdrawing from the place, when on passing the Wallkill, he met a farmer who had found some bones three years previous, and who led him to the spot where - he had made the discovery. ‘This was also a marsh, twenty miles to the west of the river Hudson.

Here he commenced his operations anew, and after many days of inces- sant toil he succeeded in exhuming a lower jaw in a state of perfect preservation, accompanied by several other main bones. Bearing homewards in a species of triumph the precious fruits of this toilsome campaign of three months’ duration, he formed two skeletons, supply- ing the place of the bones that were wanting in the one, by well executed casts of those he had belonging to the other; and of such as were wanting on one side of the same subject, by casts of such as were perfect on the other.

The completion of this task fully justifies me in asserting, that the osteology of this great animal is fully ascertained, with the single ex- ception of the upper part of the skull.

The most perfect of these two skeletons has been placed in Mr. Peale’s Museum at Philadelphia. The other was transported to Lendon by his son Mr. Rembrandt Peale, and exhibited to the public. He published a description of it, and had the kindness to send me a copy, which has enabled me to give the foregoing details relative to his father’s labours. I shall take another opportunity further on, of turn- ing it to greater account*.

Notices either of the skeleton or of these two pamphlets have been published in the English, French, and German Journals}, and it was . this skeleton which formed the subject of the article inserted by M. Domeyer in the fourth volume of the New Essays of the Society of Naturalists at Berlin.

Add to this, that Mr. A. C. Bonn, a young man of great promise, whom his father, a celebrated professor of Amsterdam, had very soon after the misfortune to lose, published in 1810 a detailed dissertation, accompanied by avery handsome engraving of Mr. Peale’s skeleton, from a drawing executed at Philadelphia by Rembrandt Peale}.

To materials so numerous and complete, I have had the good fortune to be able to add some that are peculiarly my own.

* Account of the Skeleton of the Mammoth, &c. London, 1802, in 4to. An His- torical Disquisition on the Mammoth, ib. 1803.

+ See the Universal Literary Gazette of Halle, April, 1804, No. 111, p. 82, and divers numbers of M. Voigt’s Magazine de Physique. See also in the Journal de Physiqne, a notice from M. Valentine.

+ Werhandeling over de Mastodonte of Mammoth, van den Ohio, door A. C, Bonn, in 8vo.

VOL. I. FE

326 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

To the kindness of MM. Michaélis and Wiedeman, I am indebted for the same drawings as large as life, which were formerly communi- cated to Camper. I gave engravings of them in a former edition, but as I have at present better executed engravings of some of the parts, I have only preserved those of the skull and the humerus, and even these I have rectified after those of M. Camper and the originals. M. Adrien Camper having become possessor. of the pieces from which these drawings were taken, he sent me the measures and descriptions of them, and I have since had the opportunity of examining the speci- mens themselves at his house.

Mr. Everard Home, a celebrated English anatomist, has been good enough to have a drawing of the London skeleton executed specially for me.

The King’s Museum has long been in possession of the femur brought home by Longueil, as well as of several teeth ; half of a jaw and two tusks brought by M. Legris from Bellisle have been more recently added to the collection. But the most important acquisition of this description has been the magnificent present received from Mr. Jeffer- son. This consists of an enormous tusk, the halves of two lower jaws—one of which belonging to a young subject is of the greatest importance in the history of the teeth—a tibia, a radius, and almost all the bones of the tarsus and metatarsus, of the carpus and metacarpus, as well as the phalanges, the ribs, and the vertebre.

It is by means of these divers sources of information that I have been enabled to give an idea of this extraordinary animal; but before I proceed to examine it in detail, I must conclude the enumeration of the places where its remains have been found.

From all that can be collected from the accounts of observers, the depots of the bones of the mastodon, as well as of those of the other fossil species, which most frequently accompany them, are more gene- rally found in marshy places, where the salt water attracts the wild animals, and more especially the different species of stags ; and for this reason they have received the name of Licks.

The most celebrated of these depots—that visited by Longueil, Croghan, and so many others, and that which has given to the masto- don the name of the animal of Ohio, is itself called Great Bone Lick.

It is in the state of Kentucky, to the left and south-east of the Ohio, four miles from its banks, and thirty-six from the embouchure of the river of Kentucky*, almost opposite that of the river called the Great Miamis. It occupies a space buried betwixt two hills, and forming a marsh fed by a jet of salt water. Its bottom is a black and fetid turf. The bones are found in the slime and on the banks of the marsh, at a depth of more than four feet, according to the account of the late General Collaud, who was present on the spot, and who had collected no less than four-and-twenty specimens during four days’ labour. Their abundance there is truly astonishing. Croghan supposes that he saw the remains of no less than thirty animals, but those of a much greater number have since been collected.

They are there accompanied by the bones of many other species.

* Volney. Picture of the Climate and Soil of the United States of America, i. p. 100.

ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. 327

Mr. Turner assures us that on both sides of the little stream there are beds entirely composed of the bones of buffaloes, stags, and ether small animals: he further states, that he remarked that these bones are nearly all fractured, and he goes so far as to suppese that they were accumulated in that spot by mastodens that made these smaller animals their prey*. :

Jefferson had this spot explored in 1806, as we have already men- tioned in the chapter on elephants, and extracted from it the specimens which that great and wise magistrate has presented to our Museum.

Part of these picces are still overlaid with the turf in which they had been buried. it is blackish, with a mixture of fine sand ; some ligneous particles are still discernable in it.. When united with nitric acid it gives forth a fetid odour, announcing an animal principle. M. Chevreul was kind enough to examine it at my request, and found that out of a hundred parts, nearly seventy-five were clay, sixteen sand, and five were sulphate of chalk. The clay contained carbonate of chalk and sulphate of iron ; there was also a Jittle oxide of iron. According to M. Chevreul, this turf bears a strong resemblance to certain peats of Picardy, which are used for manuring lands.

Nevertheless, the bones of the mastodon are found not only on other parts of the banks of the Ohio, but in all the temperate regions of North America, in whatsoever direction it is examined.

In the Physical and Medical Journal of Philadelphia, published by the late Dr. Smith Barton, Ist part, page 154, appears a detailed ac- count of five skeletons almost entire, found in 1762 by the savages called Chawantas, much higher up, three miles from the left bank of the Ohio, and, as is almost always the case, in a salt and humid ground; a jaw and the fragment of a tusk were transported to Fort Pitt.

The Baron de Bock, of Anspach, in a memoir addressed some time since to the Institute, gives a description of a tooth found on the right bank of the Ohio, between the two rivers Miamis, by Major Craig, an officer in the artillery of the United States. From the Museum of M. Schmiedel, it was transferred te that of M. Ebel at Hanover, and it is the same mentioned by Merk in his fifth Letter, page 28.

In 1786, the same officer brought home from the banks of the Ohio, a tibia, part of a tusk, a portion of a jaw and a molar, which have been engraved by Colonel Brahm, and published in the Columbian Maga- zine of Philadelphia.

According to the account of Dr. Mitchell, an upper jaw was found in July, 1817, in the State of Indiana near the river Blanche, which falls into the Ouabache, one of the tributaries on the right bank of the Ohio. It was twenty and a half inches in breadth, and twenty-five in length. One of the jaw bones was seven inches and three quarters in length}.

General Collaud telis us that he saw some of these bones near the Great Osage river, which falls into the Missouri, a little above its con-

* George Turner. Memoir of the extraordinary Fossils denominated Mammoth- Bones. Philadelphia, 1799. This paper was read to the American Society in June,1797. + Cuvier. Theory of the Earth. New York Hdition, 1818, p. 363.

FFQ2

528 ON THE FOSS!IL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

fluence with the Mississippi. They were in morasses, similar to those of the Great Bone Lick.

‘The late Mr. Smith Barton, professor in the University of Pennsyl- vania, and one of those men who have merited most of the new world, by propagating the useful sciences, sent me a confirmation of this testimony at the time at which it occurred.

He writes thus—‘‘ An intelligent traveller has just stated to me that he saw the greatest quantities of the bones of this animal in a parti- cular spot, near the river of the Osage Indians. Amongst other speci- mens he has collected seventeen tusks, some of which were six feet long, and afoot in diameter. but the greater part of these bones were in a very advanced state of decomposition*. Moreover, Mr. Barton has had the kindness to send mea molar, which I have placed in the King’s Museum.

Mr. Jefferson, in his observations on Virginia, relates that a Mr. Stanley, who had been conducted by the Indians to the west of the Missouri, saw immense depots of these bones on the banks of a river flowing towards the west. ‘Thus we may entertain hopes of discover- ing them as far as the Pacific Ocean.

They have been found in greater quantities as we approach the Atlantic, because the countries lying in that direction are better in- habited, and their soils are more frequently explored.

Mr. Jefferson tells us that some have been exhumed on the branch of the Tennessee called North Holston, behind the Alleghanies of Carolina, at thirty-six degrees of northern latitude ; they were also in asalt swamp. The Tennessee is, as every body knows, one of the tri- butaries of the Ohio.

It was also in the basin of the Chio, and on its right bank, in the county of Wythe in Virginia, and contiguous to the county of Green Bryand, where the bones of the megatherium were found, that the most extraordinary depot of the bones of the mastodon were dis- covered.

Mr. Barton received an account of it, dated from Williamsburg in Virginia, the 6th of October, 1805, from Bishop Madisson, superior of the college of William and Mary in Virginia, and one of the most enlightened men in the United States.

NM. Pichon, my colleague in the council d’état, being then consul general of France in the United States, had the kindness to transmit me an account of this discovery.

On a bank of calcareous stone, five feet and a half beneath the surface of the soil, reposed a sufficient quantity of bones to raise an expectation of their being abse to form a skeleton of them. One of the teeth weighed seventeen pounds.

But what renders this discovery unique among so many others, is the circumstance of their finding in the midst of these bones, a half decayed mass of small branches, grasses, and leaves, among which they recognized a species of willow, still common in Virginia ; it was enveloped in a sort of bag, which appeared to be the stomach of the

Extract of a letter from Mr. Smith Barton, of Philadelphia, in 1806.

ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. 329

animal ; from which they concluded that these were the precise sub- stances on which the animal subsisted.

The bottom of this entire country is calcareous stone, full of impres- sions of shells; the caverns yield a quantity of nitre, sulphate of soda, and of magnesia. ‘They have since discovered there some sulphate of barytum, and divers mineral springs. Nor are these bones less fre- quent on the other side of the three great chains of the Alleghanies, the North and Blue Mountains.

We have before spoken in detail of the two skeletons collected by Mr. Peale in 1801, near the Hudson and the Wallkill, in the state of New York. This country seems to abound beyond any other in the bones of the mastodon. Sylvanus Miller and Dr. James G. Graham have noticed it in the fourth volume of the Medical Repository. In the month of May, 1817, Dr. Mitchell witnessed the exhuming of several bones inasmall pasture ground at Chester, in the county of Orange: they were surrounded with vegetable fibres, resembling straw, and covered with four feet of turf.

The bones were not in a good state of preservation: they consisted of the feet, the spine, ashoulder plate, an upper and lower jaw, more or less perfect. There were also some molar teeth, and some tusks, one of which was nine feet in length*.

Mr. Mitchell likewise tells us‘of a molar with six points, exhumed in the county of Rockland in the same State, near the town of Hampstead, thirty-four miles from the capital.

M. Autenrieth assures me that they are to be met with in many of the anterior parts of Pennsylvania. Mr. Mitchell distinctly specifies a depot found near Bedford in the same State. The late Mr. Smith Barton gave me notice of the discovery of some in the state of New Jersey, fifteen miles from Philadelphia.

In 1811 some considerable portions were exhumed on the banks of the York river, six miles to the east of Williamsburg in Virginia ; amongst them were the ossa innominata, a femur, two vertebra of the back, two ribs almost entire, two tusks in a very fair state of preservation, seven jaw-bones, four of which were still adhering to their sockets and appeared to belong to the lower jaw. These bones were in a marshy soil, intersected with the roots of the cypress, which must anciently have flourished on the soil. Mr. Mitchell states these facts on the authority of a letter of Bishop Madisson, which I have already had occasion to quote}.

Mr. Turner mentions some found at Wilmington and Newbern, in North Carolina§.

I observe by a letter addressed from Charleston, by Governor Dray- ton to Sir John Sinclair, an extract of which has been communicated to me by the Earl of Buchan, as well as by a work of the same person on South Carolina, that these bones, as well as those of the elephant or real mammoth, are found in the southern parts of that province.

* Mitchellap. Cuvier. New York Edition, 1818. p. 376.

+ Ibid, plate vi, figs. 1 and 2.

} Mitchell loc. cit. page 399; Medical Repository, vol. xv, page 388. § Memoir before quoted, page 216, note.

830 oN THE FOSSIL BONES OF TACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

My brother academician, M. Bosc, a profound naturalist, was present at the discovery of five jaw-bones partly decayed, in the open- ing of the trenches of the canal of Carolina, fifteen miles from Charles- ton, in a fine sand, three feet below the surface. Mr. Turner also bears witness to the same fact.

At the time when Mr. Jefferson wrote, none had been discovered beyond the thirty-sixth degree of latitude, but Charleston is in the thirty-third. Up to the present period, this is the most southern point where they have been discovered on this side of the mountains. But in Louisiana they have been found in three or four different spots in the country inundated by the Mississippi, to the west of that river, in the country of the Apelonsians, which is near the thirty-first degree.* I have myself inspected and engraved two enormous jaw-teeth, found in that country, and purchased at New Orleans by M. Martel, the French consul at Louisiana.

With regard to the north, Mr. Smith Barton, has informed me that none have been exhumed higher up than towards the forty-third degree of latitude, in the direction of Lake Erie.

I have not as yet seen a single pieee from South America: all the teeth brought from Peron, by Dombey and Humboldt, and from Terra Firma by the latter, are of another species, though of the same genus, as we shall see hereafter. I have a strong suspicion that those of the Brazils and Lima, mentioned by William Hunter in the Philosophical Transactions, No. lviii, page 40, are in the same predicament.

Thus, as far as our own knowledge goes on the subject, the bones of this huge animal, though very common in North America, are rarely found in any other country, if indeed they do exist at all. But wherever they are found, they are at a short distance from the surface, and yet they are in general very little decayed. Neither are they much disturbed, and like almost all the fossil bones, they give evidence of their having remained in the places where they are found from the period of the death of the animal.

Those of the river of the Great Osages before mentioned, had something peculiar in their position. They were all in a vertical posture, as if the animals had merely sunk in the swampy turf. The ferruginous substances with which they are tinged or impregnated, form the chief proof of their long sojourn in the interior of the earth.

The indications of a stay, or of a passage, of the sea over them, are more rare than in the case of the bones of elephants. I have not ~ observed any remains of shells or zoophytes on the bones of the great mastodon which I have examined, nor have I found in any account, that they have been found in the places from which these bones have been extracted—a circumstance so much the more extraordinary, as we might be tempted to look upon these salt marshes, where they are found in the greatest abundance, as the remains of a more extensive liquid surface, which might have destroyed those animals.

Mr. Barton is of opinion that these salt waters have contributed to the excellent state of preservation in which these fossils are found.

* William Dunbar. Transactions of the American Society, vol vi, page 40, and Martin Duralde, Ibid, page 55.

GN THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. 331

Nay more, in the letter he has been kind enough to address to me on this subject, he cites two witnesses in order to prove that some of the fleshy parts, easily distinguishable, had from time to time been exhumed, which, considering the warmth of the climate, is a much more astonishing discovery than that of the mammoths or real fossil elephants and rhinoceroses of the north of Siberia. The savages, who ee seen five skeletons of them in 1762, reported that one of them had

“long nose, beneath which was its mouth,” and Mr. Barton would sieve infer that this long nose could be nothing else but a trunk.

Kalm, while speaking “of a large skeleton, which according to the ideas of his time he believed to be that of an elephant, discovered by the Indians in a marsh in the country of the Illinois, says, “the form of the beak is still discernible, although it is half decayed.” There is a strong probability, as Mr. Barton supposes, that the root at least of the trunk is here to be understood.

These two facts go far to establish the probability of the opinion, that the masticated plants found beside the skeleton in the county of Wythe, were in fact the substances which filled the stomach of the animal to which that skeleton belonged.

Some years since a piece was exhibited at Paris, which, if suffi- ciently authenticated, would be a confirmation of the others, and would almost lead us to doubt the extinction of the species, viz. a hoof with its five nails. The owner of this specimen declared he received it from a Mexican, who told him he had bought it of some Indians to the west of the Missouri, who had found it, together with a tooth, inacave. But this hoof was so fresh, it bore such evident marks of having been severed from the foot by a sharp instrument, it bore such a perfect resemblance to that of an elephant, that I could not but suspect some deception had been practised, at least by the Mexican.

We may easily imagine that conjecture has been busy in attempting to account for the origin of these bones, and in affording explanations of the causes which brought about the destruction of the animals to which they belonged.

The Chawanias Indians believe that there existed with these animals men of a stature proportioned to theirs, and that they were both destroyed by the thunder of the Great Spirit*.

Those of Virginia recount that a troop of these terrible quadrupeds, destroying the deer, the buffaloes, and the other animals created for the use of the Indians, the Great One on high seized his thunder, and annihilated them all, with the exception of the largest male ; the latter presented his brows to the thunderbolts and dashed them aside as they fell: but being at length wounded in the side, he fled in the direction of the great lakes, where he abides at this day}.

These stories afford a sufficient proof that these Indians have no positive ideas of the actual existence of the species in the countries which they inhabit.

Lamanon, adopting the opinion of many of his predecessors, sup- posed it to be some unknown cetacea, but this arose from his having observed nothing more than its teeth, and from his ignorance of the

* Barton’s Journal, p, 157. + Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia.

bien.

oo2 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

fact, that the shape of this animal’s feet is a decided refutation of this conjecture.

M. de la Coudreniére observing, in an account of Greenland, that the savages of that country pretended to be in possession of a black — hairy animal corresponding in shape with the bear, and measuring thirty-six feet in height, referred to this animal not only the mastodon, but also the fossil elephant or mammoth, which he confounded with it*.

Most probably too, it is this confounding of the two species which has led Mr. Jefferson to think, that it is only in the central regions of the frigid zone that the mammoth arrives at its full growth, as those countries lymg immediately beneath the equator, are of all others peculiarly adapted for the growth and maintenance of the elephant. Regardless of these hypothetical ideas, I shall proceed to the examina- tion of the bones of the mastodon ; and according to my usual practice, I shall commence with the teeth.

1. The Jaw-teeth.

Of these we have, at setting out, to determine the form, the dz Her - ences, the succession, and the number.

T heir most striking characteristic is their shape.

Their crown in general approaches more or less to the rectangular figure.

It is composed of but two substances: the interior, called the bony, or more properly the ivory substance, and the enamel. The latter is very thick ; there is not any of that third substance so remarkable in the elephant, and which has received the appellation of cement or cortical.

The crown is divided by furrows, or a species of very open vallies, into a certain number of transverse hills; each of these hills is itself divided by a slope into two thick obtuse points, irregularly shaped like quadrangular pyramids somewhat rounded. ‘The crown then, pro- vided it has not been worn, is rough with thick denticuli disposed in pairs.

There is a wide difference between these and the teeth of the - carnivorous animals, which present us with nothing more than a prin- cipal longitudinal blade serrated like a saw.

On the whole, there is only a slight difference of proportion between these transverse hills divided into two points, and the small transverse walls with the blade divided into many tuberosities, of the teeth of the elephant. The only difference is, that the latter form hills more numerous, more elevated, more devente and separated by vallies nar-

<<" rower and deeper: but an essential difference is contained in this, that

in the elephant these vallies are entirely filled by the cortical, while in ‘the mastodon they are not filled by any substance. From this it

“Sgresults, that the crown of the elephant is very soon rendered flat by

detrition, while nevertheless it alw ays continues to be transversely

“furrowed,” “while that of the mastodon has long been covered with

papillee, as detrition at first merely produces shapes like lozenges in those Tris and that, when it has become quite flat by the complete

a Physical m1 mal, vol. xix, p. 363. + Jefferson, p. 106. te i. 3 :

ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. 300

detrition of its hills, its surface is athe level, or rather uniformly concave.

Hence the mastodon must have made the same use of its teeth as the pig and the hippopotamus, which have the same characters im- pressed upon their teeth. It must have been particularly fond of tender vegetables, roots, and aquatic plants, but it did not subsist on animal food.

It is this vegetable diet which has worn these teeth, and which accounts for some of them being discovered, as we have just men- tioned, with their denticuli blunted, while others are worn as low as their pyramids; others, again, where all the bases are united ina single surface, consisting of a bony substance, surrounded by enamel.

As the denticuli assume the form of almost quadrangular pyramids, the shape of each, at a certain section, represents a lozenge. Hence the half worn teeth exhibit upon their crowns transverse rows of two lozenges each.

The roots of these teeth are not formed, like all the others, until after the crown. ‘They are found complete in those teeth only which have been at least a little worn. The enamel being very thick, the neck of the tooth is very much swelled.

The roots of the teeth of this mastodon are distinguishable by deeply indented transverse lines, affording very decided signs of successive increments.

The dt iffer ences of the teeth of the mastodon from each other con- sist chiefly in the number of denticuli, and in the Hele proportion of length and breadth.

I am acquainted with three species of them—

Those almost square, with three pairs of denticuli ;

The rectangular, with four pairs of denticuli ;

Others still longer, somewhat contracted behind, with five pairs of denticuli and an uneven fang.

The first species we generally find the most worn. I have seen many of them more than half, and some worn as far as the neck. .

On the other hand, the last mentioned species are very rarely worn, and have almost in every instance their last denticuli entire.

This circumstance would in itself be sufficient to indicate their position. The teeth with six points are the anterior teeth, and appear the first: those from eight to ten come after them, and are situated behind them.

This induction is further confirmed by direct observation.

In the lower jaws of adults, we find a jaw tooth with ten denticuli behind and six in front,

This may be observed in the specimen presented to our Museum by Mr. Jefferson, and represented plate 21, figures 1 and 2; the back molar, With ten denticuli, is there very little worn ; its first denticuli only are cut. ‘The molar with six denticuli, which occupies the front, has on the contrary all its denticuli more or less blunted.

The j jaw brought home by M. Legris, of Bellisle, and represeured plate 22, figures 1 and 2, belongs to a more aged animal : all the den- _ticuli of the back molar are there worn; but there also the molar with six denticuli has decayed, and its socket has already begun to fill. At

334 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

the same time these two pieces show us at once that the molares with eight denticuli do not belong to the lower jaw, otherwise they would be placed between the two just mentioned, which is not the case.

Hence we must conclude}that they belong to the opposite jaw. This, in fact, is proved by a fragment of a jaw, also presented by Mr, Jefferson, and which we give, plate 20, fig. 4. We may there see a molar, with eight denticuli in its place, similar to those I have described in a detached state.

Moreover, , it is positively ascertained by the fragments of M. Michaélis, plate 20, figs. 2, 3, and 5, as well as by the skull of Mr. Peale’s skeleton, that in front of the tooth with eight denticuli of the upper jaw, there is one with six points, almost similar in every respect to that of the lower jaw.

The disposition of the jaw teeth of the adult is this, that it has four belonging to each jaw, that is, two with six denticuli, and two with eight denticuli above; two with six denticuli, and two with ten denticuli below.

The back molares, whether of eight or of ten denticuli, have besides a small fang, more or less irregular, which has so far deceived some engravers, as to lead them to represent it as if forming an additional pair of denticuli. Others, on the contrary, have sometimes given the last pair of real denticuli, when a little smaller than usual, as if it were nothing more than a little fang*. These inaccuracies of certain figures led me to believe at the period of my first edition, that there might be jaw-teeth with eight denticuli below, between those of six and those of ten denticuli, but observation has undeceived me.

From this difference of the back molares upper and lower, we may observe that they bear the same relative proportions to each other in the mastodon that they do in the hippopotamus, which has the last lower molar a little more complicated, and with a denticuli more than the last of the upper jaw.

But besides these eight molares which remain in the adult, there are others placed before these in young subjects, which are cast in succession.

The young jaw presented to our Museum by Mr. Jefferson, and represented plate 21, figs. 3 and 4, affords a proof of this: we may there see, quite in the rear, the remains of a large cell which ought to contain the germ of a large molar, of the number of whose denticuli we are ignorant, as it has been lost, but which was probably the molar with ten denticuli, which we may observe in the adult jaws.

In the front of this cell is a tooth, which came out of the socket, but not out of the gum, as its knobs are as yet perfectly unimpaired : there are six pairs of them. There is moreover in front a molar of six points, but now somewhat worn, and in the most forward part of the jaw the remains of an alveolus are to be seen, indicating that a tooth had been there.

* Thus, in the engraving of the lower jaw in the British Museum (Philosophical Transact. p. 34), the fifth pair of denticuli are not sufficiently marked; on the other hand, the fang of the upper jaw of Peale’s skeleton, given by Bonn, if in reality it be not a suppositious tooth which they have fastened to the skull, is much too strongly marked.

ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. 305

Was this a tooth of six or four denticuli? This is a question which can only be decided by the discovery of some jaws of younger animals than those of which we have just spoken.

This young jaw demonstrates it to have been invariably the case,

that the great mastodon had successively at least four molares on each "side of his lower jaw ; and as we have no reason for not believing that there were as many in the upper, we must conclude that there were at least sixteen in all.

But as in the case of the elephant, these teeth are never altogether in the mouth. Their swecesston is regulated as in the case of the elephant, from front to rear. When the back tooth begins to pierce the gum, that in front is worn out and ready to fall; thus they replace each other in succession. It does not appear that there could have been more than two at each side in full exercise at the same time; finally, as is the case with the elephant, there is but one. In the lower jaw of plate 22, figs. 1 and 2, where the teeth with ten denticuli is already somewhat worn, we can only discern in front the remains of an alveolus more than half filled.

But again, we may observe a tooth of six denticuli, and another of eight in the skull represented in plate 20, a tooth of six denticuli, and one of ten in the lower jaw of plate 21, figs. 1 and 2.

Thus the effective number of teeth which can act together, is eight in the young and only four in the aged animal.

This result must diminish in a very considerable degree the ideas entertained with respect to the size of the mastodon, by those who supposed that the number of its jaw-teeth equalled that of ours, and who believed that they were all equal to the largest in size. Buffon for instance says—‘‘ The square form of these enormous jaw- teeth proves that there were a number of them in the jaws of the animal; and supposing we should allow it but six or four on each side, we may judge of the enormous size of a head which could contain at least sixteen jaw-teeth, weighing from ten to twelve pounds each. (Epochs of Nature, Justificatory Notes, No. 9).

It was by this reasoning that he was led to attribute to this animal a superiority in size over our largest elephants, although we shall see that there is as yet no proof extant that its height ever exceeded twelve feet, and that, according to Buffon’s own account, the Indian elephants sometimes reach fifteen or sixteen feet in height.

I shall now proceed to examine more in detail these teeth and their variations.

In plate 19, we may observe four of different sorts and different states, represented at half their natural size.

Let us begin with those of six denticuli. Fig. 5 is one of those of six denticuli half worn down: it has been copied from a drawing kindly communicated to me by M. Blumenbach.

The Museum has long been in possession of three similar to these, contributed at a very early period by Fabri. They are the same that Daubenton (Natural History, xu, No. 1106, 1007, 1108), and Buffon (Epochs of Nature, plate 5), have taken for the teeth of a gigantic hippopotamus, whereas the hippopotamus has never more than four trefoil figures ; in no case has he six.

336 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

This figure, with six lozenges, is the result of an incomplete detri- tion ; when detrition is not so far advanced, there are only slight trun. cations; and when the tooth has nct as yet protruded from the gum, the crown merely presents three-notched knobs, somewhat depressed in their centre.

The generosity of Mr. Jefferson has put me in possession of two of these germs, which have not undergone the slightest alteration. One of them is still adhering to the jaw, (see plate 21, figs. 3 and 4). ‘Vhat which is detached is 0,1 long, and 0,065 broad.

On the other hand, when the process of detrition is farther advanced, as is the case with the tooth of Pallas (Act. Petrop. 1777, second part, plate 9, fig. 4), the lozenges become united in pairs, in trans- verse bands.

At length detrition proceeds so far as to unite these bands together, thereby forming a single irregular disc of osseous matter, as is repre- sented by the tooth of plate 22, fig.4, which is that found by M. Legris of Bellisle. It is 0,11 in length, and 0,08 in breadth.

The teeth of six denticuli, or of six lozenges, vary in length from 0,095 to 0,12, and the longest are not always the broadest, so that there are many of them more or less square.

A difference quite as essential consists in this, that the transverse hills are more oblique in those that are narrower in proportion, and more at right angles in those that are square.

The specimens which I have had an opportunity of observing in their places in the lower jaws being all of the more oblique species, I have reason to believe that it is the upper teeth that are more square and that have their hills more transverse. This is the more probable, as the same difference in the direction of the hills is observable with regard to the back molares.

‘The two teeth contributed by Longueil at a very early period, one of which is represented by Buffon, in his supplement, vol, v, plate 5, were square in this way, and very transverse. One of them mea- sures 0,11 by 0,085.

The teeth with six oblique denticuli differ from each other in relative length and breadth. The young jaw (plate 21, figs. 3 and 4), demonstrates that the smaller, which are also the narrower, are placed before the others. In fact, the posterior tooth eee measures 0,095 by 0,066, and the anterior 0,08 by 0,055.

Let us now proceed to the teeth that have ten denticuli, and are con- tracted behind, that is to say, the lower back molares.. They vary in the degrees of detrition, as much as those of six denticuli.

Their size is certainly calculated to excite surprise. That in the Museum of Ebel, described by the Baron de Bock, and which is half- worn down, is 0,237 in length.

We have one in the King’s Museum, contributed by the Duke of Placenza, the points of which are quite unimpaired ; it is 0,230 in length, and 0,11 in breadth. I have given an engraving of it (plate 19, fig. 2

” Another equally unimpaired, contributed by M. Dufrien, measures

0,225 by 0,1. That which is represented in figs. 1 and 3, and which is now some-

ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. Be |

what decayed, was in the cabinets of Joubert and M. Dree. It is 0,2 long and 0,095 broad; placed upon its roots, it is 0,18 high, and weighs ‘eight pounds twelve ounces.

That of the adult jaw, presented by Mr. Jefferson (plate 21, figs. | and 2) is scarcely injured. Its length is 0,182, and its width 9,095.

I have seen one brought from new Orleans, in an intermediate state of detrition, 0,182 long, and another fromthe same country, equally perfect, 0,18 in length. All these specimens had a fang, still plainly distinguishable.

There are some in which the fang is reduced to a gentle tubercle, which in some cases is almost evanescent. Such is that of the tooth given me by thelate Dr. Barton, which I have deposited i in the King’ s Museum. It is remarkable for its whiteness, and is only worn in its three pairs of anterior denticuli. Its length is 0,18, its width 0,102.

There are, moreover, some of these teeth contracted behind, and in other respects quite similar to the preceding, where the two last denticuli are amalgamated into one; so that we may say they have but eight denticuli, and a strong fang. Nevertheless, I do not think we are justified in assigning them a new place in the classi- fication of jaw teeth ; and there is stil reason for attributing them to a distinct species.

Some are almost as large as the common teeth. Such is that of plate 19, fig. 4, which was given me by the late M. Tonnelier. It is 0,17 long and 0,08 broad. Its denticuli are beginning to be impaired.

We have two similar to this, contributed by Mr. Jefferson; one of which is a bronze colour. They are 0,18 in length, and 0,095 in breadth.

There are others much smaller; but they do not differ so far as to lead us to regard them as proceeding from a distinct species.

Of this sort is that given to Buffon by the Abbé Chappe, and repre- sented in the supplement to the Natural History, vol.v, plate 3, figs. land 2. It only measures 0,165 in length, and 0,090 in breadth.

The upper back molares, the characters of which may be deter- mined by those which I have represented, still adhering to the maxil- lary bone (plate 20, figs. 2, 4, and 5), appear to me to differ from the lower, as well in the number of their denticuli, as in the particular that they are a little sliorter in proportion, less contracted behind, and that their hills, like those of the upper teeth with six denticuli, are more constantly placed at right angles.

The specimen I have just cited is 0,15 in length and 0,095 in breadth. The fang of these upper back molares is very frequently re- duced to nothing.

Thus the tooth given to Buffon by Vergennes, and which is repre- sented in the supplement to the Natural History, vol. v, plates 1 and 2, belongs to this species, and is almost without a fang. It still adheres to a remnant of an alveolus: it is 0,195 long, and 0,12 broad.

2. The Lower Jaw.

A knowledge of this part was acquired immediately after that of the molar teeth. ‘The half ey represented in the Philosophical Trans- actions, No. 67, conveyed a sufficient idea of it.

338 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS,

It thereby appeared, 1st, that this animal, like the elephant and the rosemarus, had neither incisors nor canine teeth in the lower jaw; 2ndly, that its lower jaw terminates in front in a point, intersected bya species of canal; which is also the case with the elephant and the rose- marus; 3dly, that its posterior angle, though obtuse, is well defined, and not rounded circularly, as it is in the elephant.

The condyle, the most characteristic part of the lower jaw, was there mutilated ; but an idea of it may be formed by an examination of plate 21, fig. 6, for which I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. Peale. We have there a front view of the jaw of the mastodon, probably con- trasted with that of the elephant of fig. 7.

It may be observed that the condyle differs in little from that of the elephant ; which, taken with the formation of the teeth, is an additional proof that the animal was not carnivorous. ‘The whole of the ascend- ing part is high in proportion, and the coronoid apophysis rises to the level of the condyle, while in the elephant if is much lower. The longitudinal part is less elevated in proportion to its length, but it is quite as much bumped, particularly behind.

The lower jaw of Mr. Peale’s skeleton is 2’ 10’ (English) long, and weighs 63 pounds. The mutilated half (plate 22) measures from its point to some distance behind the molar (from a to 8, figs. 1 and 2) 0,54, which leads me to think that when entire, it was the larger of the two. The height of its dental part is 0,175, and its thickness 0,114; it weighs twenty-six pounds three ounces. That of an elephant of 8’ is only 0,65 in length.

But to have a more accurate knowledge of the anterior part of this jaw, we must consult plate 21, fig. 5, which is copied from that of Mr. Mitchell.

We may there observe, that the point is more contracted. aad pro- longed in front than is the case in any other specimens which are mu- tilated in this fragile part. This character may easily serve to dis- tinguish the jaw of a mastodon, even without its teeth, from those of the fossil elephant.

3. The Skull.

The descriptions of Michaélis and Camper first brought us ac- quainted with the fragment represented in plate 20, figs. 1, 2, and 5, with which the piece of fig. 3, which must have belonged to it, corre- sponds; so that a, 0, fig. 3, shall touch a’ 0’, fig. 2, and that the tooth A of fig. 3 shall be the congeneric of the tooth A, fig. 2. Thus B is the molar apophysis of the maxillary bone; CC, the pterygoid apophysis of the palatine bones ; E E, the suture separating the palatine and maxillary bones, &c.

IT have remarked that Michaélis and Camper considered this spe- cimen in an inverse sense, taking the posterior extremity for the ante- rior, and the palatine for the intermaxillary bones.

And yet there were sufficient reasons to allege against their opinion; Ist. the anterior jaw bones must then have been larger than the posterior ; the contrary of which obtains in all herbivorous animals, and even in the lower jaw of this animal itself; 2nd, they must have been less worn, which is not less contrary to reason and analogy ; 38rd, there would then have been no incisive aperture, &c.

ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. 309

These are some of the objections which I stated to M. Adrien Camper, and which induced him to re-examine this specimen ; which led to the discovery of new proofs, which at once convinced my learned friend. 1st, On clearing off the clay which still adhered to the fragment, he laid bare the palatine sutures, which had escaped the observation of his father; 2nd, he discovered the three spheno pala- tines F F, fig. 1, and the division of their canal in the holes GH, &c. fig. 2, for conducting the nerve to the palate, &c.

It was impossible that indications like these could be delusive; and the discovery of a skull with its snout, made soon after by Mr. Peale, confirmed our conclusions on the subject.

But this first specimen was in itself sufficient to put us in possession of the following characters of the mastodon :-—

1st. Its jaw bones diverge in front, while those of the eommon ele- phant are more or less converging; and those of the fossil elephant or Russian mammoth are almost parallel. The young pig and the hip- popotamus alone approach the mastodon a little in this particular.

2nd. Its osseous palate extends far beyond the last tooth: the pha- cochera, or wild boar of Ethiopia, is the only herbivorous animal which approximates to it in this particular.

3rd. The pterygoid apophyses of the palatine bones have a thickness unexampled among quadrupeds.

4th. The slope in front of this apophyses bears some affinity to that of the hippopotamus ; which is, nevertheless, much uarrower, &c. The more perfect skull of Mr. Peale furnishes us with some other characters.

5th. Mr. Rembrandt Peale tells us that no traces of an orbit are per- ceptible at the anterior part of the arcade, which must have placed tke eye much higher than in the elephant.

6th. The maxillary bones, as may be observed in our plate 23, fig. 1, have much less vertical elevation than in the elephant, and bear a greater resemblance to those of ordinary animals.

7th, For the same reason, the zygomatic arch is less elevated, espe- cially behind, thereby corresponding with the form of the lower jaw. The position of the ear depends on that of the arch.

8th. This proportion has a direct influence on the position of the occipital condyles. In the elephant they are very much elevated above the level of the palate, while in the mastodon they are at that level.

9th. With respect to the great cells which communicate such a thickness to the skull of the elephant, separating its two plates and forming the entire prolongation of the different sinuses of the nose, they seem to be precisely similar inthe mastodon. This is illustrated by all the figures of our plate 20.

It is impossible to determine with accuracy the precise elevation of the summit of the head, as this part is defective in the skeleton of Mr. Peale. But its weight, with that of the jaw bones, and especially that of the tusks, do not leave room for doubting that the occiput was very much elevated, in order to afford sufficient play to the elevating muscles; consequently, the mastodon must in this particular have borne a great resemblance to the elephant.

340 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

Mr. Peale has not given the length of the skull of his skeleton ; but to judge of it by the figures, it must be nearly equal to 1,136. The portion which is in the cabinet of M. Camper (plate 20) measures 0,455 from the front of the tooth with six denticuli to the posterior edge of the pterygoid apophyses. Calculating its entire length on the proportions indicated by the figures of Mr. Peale, it should be 0,91. Mr. Peale’s mastodon being supposed to be ten feet high, this portion of the head must have belonged to an animal of eight. An elephant eight feet high, measures ‘but 0,8 from the alveolar edge to the occipital condyles. Thus the head of the mastodon is a little longer, in proportion to the height of its body, than that of the elephant.

4. The Tusks.

The front of the lower jaw, when deprived of its teeth and contracted, affords a sufficient indication that there must have been some teeth in the upper jaw, protruding from the mouth, as is observable in the ele- phant and the rosemarus.

This is further confirmed by the tusks which are so frequently found with the jaws of the mastoden: this was at first the opinion enter- tained by Camper, previous to his falling into the error] have just re- futed.

Strictly speaking, however, it was possible that the tusks and the teeth armed with denticuli might have belonged to separate animals, and Daubenton had adopted this conjecture.

The reasons In support of this pibion must have increased, when it was ascertained that the real molares of elephants have been found in the same places. ~

Mr. Peale was the first to supply incontestible proofs of the masto- don’s having tusks, by discoverivg a skull with the alveoli still extant, and with its molares in a good state of preservation.

They are imbedded iw “the incisive bone, like those of elephants. They are composed, like the latter, of an ivory, the grain of which pre- sents the appearance of curvilinear lozenges. It is almost impossible to distinguish a piece of elephant’s ivory from that of the ivory of the mastodon.

T am justified in this observation by a tusk of the latter species, which is at the present moment lying on my table. It was brought to our Maseum from the west of the Alleghanies, with the portion of the lower a to which I have so often alluded.

r. Peale, indeed, gives a somewhat different account of the. tiisles of = skeleton :—‘« A transverse section of the tusk of an elephant,” says this learned man, “ is always oval; that of the mastodon is per- fectly round. The ivory of the former is uniform ; the latter presents us with two distinct substances ; the internal has the texture of ivory, but its consistency is much less : the exterior surface has not that texture, is much harder than ivory, and forms a thick envelope to the whole tusk.’’—( Disquisition on the Mammoth, p. 50).

But these distinctions are not accurate.

Ist. The tusks of the e pice are often more cr less round; on the contrary, that of the mastodon at present under my observation is elliptic.

2

tae enets: yf