ae wnicn “ARE ‘ESTABLISHED _
é THE cHaRAcTmRS OF

vomae Officer of the Pion af eiuiinuy A Dannisation « of State, a Member
: Aes Council of Public Instruction, One of the Forty of the French Acad
# Perpetual Secretary to the Academy of Sciences, Member of the Aca-
a Rd and Royal Societies. of London, Berlin, Petersburgh, l
Ghomameng ‘Edinburgh, Copenhagen, Gottingen, Turin, —
A “ag ater Modena, The Netherlands, Calcutta, and of
‘the Linnean Society of Honea: Be. Has ae Be,

: _ FOURTH EDITION,

“Revise a Scaseent
BY ADDITIONAL NOTES,

ceealak ok ie ; Dues

Tat terre a cru revoir ses premiers habitans. ae Hee

Ly

‘Danis.

~ re:
yer

— Tod *. 7 ‘fs a ¥, is bs

Z
Bare EL. ke ope < \
Gavier’s Researches on Fossil Bones , ‘ ‘

4 tavier Researches on Fossil Bones. eS ad ‘ E Pian ©

sia — os as ————

iM l

H)

* | Leoilon eHientersin, 2d Baier,

> =

AYINY PY) 2 Mossopuay 9 uopuoy

- inten yre-—$<— ll oo” Will 5
| a oN
elie i

I] mM!

7

;

Vk

SAULT [ISSO] UO SIYPMDASIAM, St0

iS
SL

> Researches 0

Levies

ANI

) Wn ANS

“Uy
YY
Wy,

Ws

\
ok

WIN ANN

\
WR

Ly,

Z

:
\
\ WY .
N A ~
MAAS RAN
WN NN
NN \ \ y MWY

AWN WANS
NX ‘ Yee
AKA
\\ \\\\ WISN
AIK Wwe
( AI RRR
My A SRN 3
AN \
‘YS, SAAN WUE:
A
\\Y »
ASS
NURSE

RRs

BRASS

Ws

WY
RAY

69

Hesearches on Loscl Hones.

MASTOD OW

Lik GREAT

2 0td Mathey

Henderson,

London

i i

ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. ; 341

Snd. The tusks of the elephant are enveloped with a substance
which differs from ivory in its texture; its fibres converge towards the
centre, and though the substance is not so hard as common enamel,
it is nevertheless a species of it.

<‘ The band of the circumference,” says Daubenton, ‘‘ is sometimes
composed of straight transverse fibres, which would terminate in the
centre if prolonged. ”—_(Natural History, vol. xi, 4to.)

This, however, is an observation which any one may make upon the
tusks, when their surface has not been impaired. My tusk of the mas-
Zodon resembles those of the elephant in this particular.:

3dly. Perhaps the softness of the interior of the tusks found by Mr.
Peale may be owing to some accidental cause which may have decom-
posed them more or less, although the bones discovered at the same
time had scarcely undergone any alteration. M. Morichini, professor
ef chemistry at Rome, ascertamed, some years since, that fossil ivory is
lable to decomposition by changing (by what agency has not been dis-
covered) its phosphate of chalk into fluid of chalk.

Our complete tusk of the mastodon has not any fluoric acid, as MM.
Vauquelin and Laugier, who have analysed it, have ascertained. Per-
haps the tusks of Mr. Peale have some.

The curves of these tusks vary as much as do those of the elephant.
That which is ease by M. Michaélis is almost straight; my own,
which I give in plate 22, fig. 3, is gently arched. A very large one,
found w ith the head of the Piclcren of Philadelphia, is curved almost to
a semicircle. As it was much mutilated, they were under the neces-
sity of substituting a model in wood in its place. Following the line
of the circumference, it measures 3,17 in leneth. That sent by Mr.
Jefferson is 2,35, or more than seven feet in length, and 0,194 in
diameter at the base.

The alveoli of the skeleton of Mr. Peale are eight inches English,
or 0,202 in depth; the points of the tusks which fit into them are not
quite in the same place as the base, and form the commencement of a
worm screw. It would appear that their direction on emerging from
the sockets is a little more oblique in front than in the elephant. At
first they were placed, as they appear in the elephant, with the point

“upwards. In this position the distance between their bases was 6”, or
0,15, and 8’ 9” or 2,65 between their points*.

M. Rembrandt Peale afterwards determined upon placing them in
an inverted position—that is, with thé convexity in front, and the
points downwards and backwards. He gives the following motives for
this change t:—

Ist. The depression of the occipital condyle, and the very decided
curve of the tusks, elevated the points of the latter to too great a height
above the ground, and above the head of the animal itself. It could

-never have lowered them sufficiently to make 1 use of them for any pur-
pose whatsoever.

°

* Extract of a letter dated Philadelphia, March 23, 1802, a copy of which has
been kindly ferwarded to me by Mr. Everard Home.
. + Historical Disquisition, page 52.

VOL. i

342 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

2nd. The tusks found in one of those places above mentioned are
worn at their points; so that, supposing this extremity to have been
upwards, we must conclude that the animal was in the habit of rub-
bing it, without any apparent reason, against rugged and vertical
rocks. Perhaps these reasons may not appear conclusive to every
body.

The fossil elephant, or real Russian mammoth, frequently had its
tusks as decidedly curved as those of the mastodon, and yet their points
‘were upwards. Weare as much at a loss to conceive of what possible
use they could be, in the position assigned them by Mr. Peale, as in
that which is pointed out for them by analogy.

The rosemarus (trichecus rosmarus) has, it is true, its tusks directed
downwards; but then it is a short limbed animal, formed for the most
part to swim in the water; and in that element such tusks might prove
serviceable. But the mastodon, with its immense length of limb,
must unquestionably have inhabited the land. It might easily have
worn the front or convexity of its tusks by rubbing them against trees,
rocks, or in any other way.

Finally, the babiroussa, whose tusks rise vertically above its head,
and then bend their points in a spiral form backwards and below, has
much less the appearance of being able to make use of its tusks than
the mastodon. Hence, until such time as the skull of a mastodon shall
have been discovered, with its tusks implanted in their sockets, nothing,
in my opinion, can justify their being placed otherwise than as they
are observed in the elephant.

5. Had the Mastodon a Trunk ?

It has been’ shown that the mastodon had an immense head; the
thick and compact jaw teeth augmented its weight: this was further
increased by long heavy tusks, which removed the centre of gravity
still farther from its supporting point. ‘These causes necessarily re-
quired the neck of the elephant to be short; that of the mastodon must
have been short likewise. As its legs are very long, as we shall pre-
sently see, it could not have reached the ground without the assistance
of a trunk; in fact, if there were no other obstruction, its tusks must
have prevented it. If, like the seal, the sea cow, and the cetacea, it had
been an inhabitant of the waters, these reasons would not be conclusive.
But this cannot have been the case, as its feet are not made for swim-
ming ; they are much too long, and the toes are too slightly developed.
Jt is therefore placed beyond ‘all doubt that the mastodon had a trunk,
and that in this, as well as in so many other particulars, it resembled
the elephant.

6. The Bones of the Trunk.

It is impossible at present to verify the conclusion drawn from the
preceding reasoning by an appeal to facts, as the soft parts must neces-
sarily have disappeared in almost every case; but we can at least sub-
stantiate that part of the premises relating to the neck. The vertebrze
are very slight, forming a neck which is very far from permitting the
mouth to descend to a level with the fore feet. We are enabled to

ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. 343

judge of this by a drawing from the skeleton (plate 23). The first
vertebre, which I only know by one of the figures of M. Michaélis,
appeared to me to bear a strong resemblance to that of the elephant.
Mr. Peale says, that the spinal apophyses of the three last vertebre
of the neck are shorter than those of the elephant. The second, third,
and fourth dorsals have very long apophyses; they then decrease
rapidly to the twelfth, after which they become very short*. In the
_ elephant they are more uniform, which would indicate greater strength
in the muscles of the spine and in the cervical ligament. There are
seven cervical, nineteen dorsal, and three lumbar vertebre. The ele-
phant has an additional vertebre and pair of ribs ; but perhaps those of
the mastodon were lost. The ribs are formed differently from those of
the elephant, being slight towards the cartilage, and thick and strong
towards the back. This difference is more peculiarly remarkable in
the first; the six first pair are very strong compared to the others,
which also become very short in proportion; which joined to the de-
pression of the pelvis, indicates that the belly was less capacious than
that of the elephant +.

7. The large Bones of the anterior Extremity.

Ist. The Shoulder-blade appears to have been much narrower than
that of the African elephant, and yet to have had its recurring
apophysis placed as high as in the Indian elephant, as may be seen by
comparing that of the skeleton of our plate 23 with the figs. 6 and 7
of our plate 14, upon elephants. In other respects this shoulder blade
has all the characteristics of those of the elephant, particularly that of
the recurring apophysis, which belongs exclusively to this species, and
to some ronguers. That of the skeleton of Mr. Peale measures 0,935 in
length. A large fragment, at present in the cabinet of M. Camper,
demonstrates that the interior of the spine is cavernous. The articu-
lating facette is 0,22 long, and 0,14 wide. The total length of the frag-
ment is 0,75. The acromion is wanting; but Mr. Peale represents it
as very long and very pointed f.

Qndly. The Humerus. Mr. Peale remarks, that in general the long
bones of the anterior extremity are much thicker in proportion than
those of the posterior extremity, and that the difference between them
in this particular is more decided than in the elephant. In fact, the
humerus of the skeleton (plate 23), and two others of the cabinet of
M. Camper, one of which I (give plate 24, figs. 8 and 9), have their
inferior crest set much higher than in the elephant, although their gene-
ral form is nearly similar. The largest is 0,84 long, its breadth at the
base is 0,235. Its crest rises to 0,42, that is to one half its length;
while that of the elephant does not reach beyond two-fifths. The hu-
merus of the skeleton of Mr. Peale measures 0,86.

3rd. The Fore-arm. Mr. Peale contents himself with observing, that
the extreme width of the two bones renders the oblique direction of the
radius, in front of the cubitus, more decided in this than in any other

* Historical Disquisitien, page 54. + Ib. p. 56. t Ib. p 7.
Ge 2

“=the ee

344 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

animal. At the period of the publication of my first edition, I had
come to the conclusion that their disposition is in every material cir-
cumstance similar to that of the elephant.

Mr. Jefferson having since sent me a very complete radius, I have
given a drawing of it (plate 24, figs. 5, 6, 7), and I have compared it
attentively with that of the elephant. Its general form is pretty much
the same; its superior facette is less contracted on the outside ; its edges
are more decided; it is more angular; its inferior part begins to grow
thick sooner, and is grosser in proportion towards the base. ‘This
radius of Mr. Jefferson is 0,670 long; the width of its superior extre-
mity is 0,130; that of the inferior, taken at the articulated facette, 1 is
0,132; anda little higher up, at the thickest part, 0,160.

The radius of the skeleton of Mr. Peale is 2’ 5” 6’” English, or 0,745
in length. It bears to the humerus a proportion of a little more than 6 to
7. In the elephant this proportion is as 6 to8. ‘Thus the fore arm of
the mastodon is longer, and its arm shorter in proportion, than are
those of the elephant.

The difference of relative Soperea between the humerus and the
shoulder blade is still greater. In the elephant it isas 8 is to 64; that
is to say, the humerus is one-fifth longer. In the mastodon, an the
contrary, it is a little more than as 8 isto 9. Thus the humerus is in
the latter animal shorter by a ninth.

There is not the slightest room for doubting of the exactness of these
relative proportions, since the bones of the extremities having been
found together by Mr. Peale, it amounts to an almost positive certainty
that they belonged to the same animal.

8. The large Bones of the posterior Extremities,

The Pelvis is much more depressed, in proportion to its width, than
in the elephant; its aperture is also much narrower. This is observed
by Mr. Peale, and it may be seen by comparing the pelvis of the ske-
leton, plate 23, with that of my plate 7 upon elephants, and the front
section of the same pelvis, plate 24, fig. 10, with fig. 3 of the plate 13
upon elephants. This form of the pelvis must necessarily have ren-
dered the abdomen smaller and consequently less capacious than that
of the elephant—a circumstance which, taken in conjunction with the
structure of the teeth, has led us to lock upon the mastodon as net be-
ing so exclusively herbivorous.

Mr. Peale tells us, that the width of the pelvis of his skeleton is 5”
8” English; but I am afraid there must be some typographical error
here, or else that he meant the circumference.

2ndly. The Femur was described before any of the other parts.
Daubenton made a drawi ng of that in our Museum, in the Memoirs of
the Academy for 1762. In fact, its enormous mass strikes us with
astonishment at the first glance. Its immense width serves at once to
distingnish it from that of the fossil elephant. It is, moreover, flatter
from front to rear in its lower extremity, because the canal corres-
ponding with the rotula is there shorter. It is 1,088 long, and 0,44
wide at the top between the head and the great trochanter ; 0,29 at the
bottom, and 0,18 in the middle. Its antero-posterior diameter i is 0,15

ON THR BONES OF THE MASTODON. | i 345

above, 0,104 in the centre, and 0,21 at the base. The diameter of its
head is 0,18.—(See plate 22, figs. 5, 6, 7.)

The femur of the skeleton of Mr. Peale is 3’ 7” English, or 1,085
long. This corresponds almost exactly with our own.

3rdly. The Tibia. That of the skeleton of Mr. Peale is 2’ English,
or 0,607, which makes the relative proportion between that and the
femur to be as 6 is to 10.

Mr. Peale is of opinion that this proportion is less than in the ele-
phant; but I have not found it so. The femora of our two Indian
skeletons measure 0,92, and the tibiz 0,56, giving in both cases the
proportion of 6 to 10 almost precisely. Nevertheless, if, as is very pro-
bable, the abdomen of the mastodon be not so large as that of the ele-
phant, its knee must appear more disengaged from the belly.

I give (plate 24, figs. 1, 2,3, 4) the tibia presented to our Museum by
Mr. Jefferson. Compared with that of the elephant, it is much thicker
in proportion to its length. ‘The anterior upper crest is much fuller
and more obtuse; it is not cut with so deep a fossa opposite to the two
femoral articulations. The latter are more irregular; that is, the
external one is narrower in proportion from back to front. The pos-
terior surface above is more hollowed; the malleolus is more salient
towards the base; the pulley of the tendon of the fibular muscle is
more hollowed, comprehending the internal. This tibia is 0,595 long;
its upper head is 0,238 broad, and the inferior 0,181.

The late M. Adrien Camper had a tibia in his Museum 0,71 long,
0,25 broad at the top, and 0,21 at the bottom, indicating an animal
much larger, but of proportions similar to the preceding one. Of the
fibula I can say nothing.

9. Of the Figure in general.

On adding together the lengths of the humerus and the radius, and
those of the femur and the tibia, we find the height of the front extre-
mity to be 1,60, and that of the rear 1,59.

The elephant, eight feet high, has the same lengths, or rather gives
the same sums—1,40 and 1,48. Thus the relative proportion of the
extremities is pretty much the same in the two species, although those
of their component parts are not so.

The height of the extremities, taken by themselves, would give nine
feet or three metres for the greatest height of the mastodon. Butas the
shoulder blade of the latter is almost one-third longer, we may allowa
little more for the height of its withers. Mr. Peale has given his skele-
ton eleven feet English, or 10’ 1” to the height. I am of opinion that
he has elevated it a little too much, by placing the shoulder blades too
low, and not spreading the articulations sufficiently. This is also the
opinion of Mr. Everard Home, who saw this skeleton. Granting, how-
ever, that it really does measure ten feet in height, it would only equal
the height of the most common elephants at present existing in India,
and would be very far frem realising those gigantic proportions which
people have fancifully attributed to the mastodon. And as the large
bones, deposited in the British and French Museums, and in that of M.
Camper, do not exceed in size those which Mr. Peale has formed into a

'
346 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

skeleton, we cannot thence infer that the latter have belonged to an
animal of the middle size.

Calculating by the largest teeth which have been found isolated, a
calculation oftentimes liable to exaggeration, we shall find that they
belonged to animals of eleven feet three or four inches at the utmost :
and the tibia in the cabinet of M. Camper, to which I have already
adverted, would indicate one eleven feet eight inches. Thus, as we
stated at the commencement of the chapter, there is no piece extant
which may serve to prove that the mastodon ever attained, far less sur-
passed, twelve feet.

The skeleton of Mr. Peale measures 15’ English, or 4,55 from the
chin to the croup, as he expressed it. -I fancy he means to say, from
the end of the snout to the posterior edge of the ischium.

This dimension of the elephant is not more considerable than his
height : an elephant ten feet high would not measure quite eleven feet

‘in length, or 3,57; so that the mastodon was much longer in pro-
portion to its height than the elephant. A very fair idea of this may be
formed by comparing my plate 23 with my plate 7, upon elephants.

10. The Feet.

Accoraine to Mr. Peale (Hist. Disq. page 57), the hind feet are
strikingly smaller than the fore feet. In the fore feet, according to
the same authority, the second phalanges terminate by grooves, which
seems to indicate that the third phalanges, or unguals, were capable
of more action than the same parts of the elephant, and bore a greater
resemblance to those of the hippopotamus.

Thanks to the generosity of Mr. Jefferson, we are now enabled to
form more exact comparisons on this subject. In general, these bones
resemble those of the elephant, as must necessarily be the case in two
animals so much akin to each other. Neither the scaphoid of the
carpus, or the trapezium, or the trapezoides, or the pisiforme, have been
met with.

The semilunar (pl. 25, fig. 2) is much more depressed. than in the
elephant, that is to say, it is much broader and less high. It is also
shorter from front to rear; in other respects its shapes and surfaces
are almost the same. The same depression likewise exists in the cunei-
forme, but in a less degree.

The cuneiforme (fig. 3) is as the proportion of the semilunar, that

is to say, longer and less high than that of the elephant. We have
only had an opportunity of seeing this bone slightly mutilated, so
that we have been unable to compare the shapes of its surfaces.
* As for the os magnum (fig. 4), it must have occupied less space
transversely, in proportion, for its proportional dimensions are almost
the same as those of the elephant. The bones of the metacarpus which
I have seen, are all shorter and thicker in proportion than those of
the elephant. This shape is more especially marked in that of the
index (pl. 25, fig. 6), which, without being longer than that of an
elephant eight feet high, is doubly as broad: Hesides the articulating
surface of the trapezoid is convex, and broader than that of the ele-
phant; the articulation of the trapezium is longer, and that which cor-
responds with the metacarpa of the medius is less vertigal.

ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. 347

The metacarpian of the annular (pl. 25, fig. 7), though of equal
length, is broader by a third than in the elephant. ‘The surface, which
corresponds with the cuneiforme, is divided into two planes by a salient
edge.

This difference has become the more perceptible, as I have seen in
juxtaposition with this metacarpal of the annular of a mastodon,
another of a fossil elephant, found in the same place, and almost
similar in every respect to that of the Indian elephant.

The astragalus sent by Mr. Jefferson (pl. 25, fig. 8), is more com-
pressed than that of the elephant; its tibial surface is more rectan-
gular, somewhat narrower in proportion: that part of it which ap-
proaches to the scaphoid is much shorter. In all these particulars,
it bears so strong a resemblance to the fossil elephant of Tuscany,
(pl. 7, fig. 2, F),1 that I should feel inclined to doubt of its belonging to
a mastodon, if a calcaneum, sent at the same time, and evidently cor-
responding with the astragalus, did not offer more strongly defined,
and, at the same time, analogous differences.

This calcaneum (pl. 25, fig. 9) is thicker and shorter: the part de-
scending towards the cubeid is much shorter; its fibular surface rises
much higher along the internal surface of the astragalus. The latter
approaches the external, and touches it towards the top. The surface
joing the scaphoid, placed beneath the internal Oe of the internal
astragalion is narrower and almost round.

The scaphoids of the tarsus (fig. 10) is thinner in proportion to
its breadth: like all the other bones, it is more compressed. I have
not seen either the cuboid or the cuneiforme of the tarsus in a sufficient
state of preservation to enable me to describe them.

The bones of the metatarsus are even thicker and shorter in pro-
portion to those of ts elephant, than are the bones of the me-
tacarpus.

The second (pl. 25, fig. 11), Besides its thickness, is still further
distinguished from that of the elephant, by the articulation of the first
bone, and coincides with the whole length of that corresponding with
the first cuneiforme.

The third bone (pl. 25, fig. 12), is less thick in proportion to its
length ; its surfaces differ but slightly from those of the elephant.
The only difference is, that the two laterals are larger, particularly
that which corresponds with the fourth.

The fourth bone (pl. 25, fig. 18), has its lateral surface larger;
besides, there is a well-defined edge between the parts of its cuboidian
surface. It appears to touch the fifth very slightly.

The same relative thickness obtains in the phalanges.

11.. General Resume.

The result of this description is—that the great mastodon bore a
strong resemblance to the elephant, both in its tusks and its whole
osteology, except the jaw-teeth; that, in all probability, it had
a trunk; that its height did not surpass that of the elephant; but
that it was a little longer, with limbs a little thicker, and a more
contracted belly ; that, spite of all these resemblances, the peculiar

348 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACH YDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

structure of its grinders are sufficient to point it out as a distinct
species from the elephant; that it fed on the same substances ag
the hippopotamus and the wild boar, giving the preference to
the roots and other coarse parts of vegetables; that this sort of
nutriment must have attracted it towards | boggy and marshy lands;
that, nevertheless, it was not formed to swim or live in the water, like
the hippopotamus, but that it was a real terrestrial animal ; that its
bones are more abundant in North America than elsewhere ; that it
may be, that they belong exclusively to that country ; that they are
in a better state of preservation, and fresher than any of the fossil
bones known to us; and that, nevertheless, there is not the slightest
proof, the slightest authentic testimony, sufficient to convince us that
there does exist either in America or elsewhere, a single animal of this
species: for the different announcements which we have seen from
time to-time, touching the living mastodons, which may have been
seen in the woods or the high lands of that vast continent, have never
been confirmed, and must be accounted as mere fables.

Addiiion.

On the great Mastodon, and its existence on the ancient, Continent.

_ In spite of the testimony of M. Pallas, and of the tooth given te
Buffon, by M. Vergennes, stated to have come from Little Tartary,
I still entertained doubts of the great mastedon’s remains, though so
abundant in America, having been found in Europe.

But this uncertainty has been dissipated since the period that the
Abbé Borson, Professor of Mineralogy at Turin, has sent mea plaster
cast of a tooth found in the neighbourhood of Asti, in the same place
where so many teeth of the narrow toothed mastodon had been dis-
covered. Its crown is 0,18 long, and 0,09 broad.

We may there observe four transy erse crests, each divided into two
hillocks ; the second of which, thougha little worn, presents the com-
mencement of alozenge. Nevertheless, these crests appeared to me
to be alittle more oblique than in those of America. Could this too
have been another species? *

SECTION II.

ON A MASTODON LESS THAN THAT OF OHIO, TO WHICH I HAVE GIVEN THE
NAME OF THE NARROW TOOTHED MASTODON. :

We have seen in the preceding section, that the first engraving of
a great molar of Ohio is that published by Guettard in 1752; but
these teeth, and the animal to which they belonged, did not acquire

* Some new teeth discovered more recently in Piedmont, Switzerland, and very
lately i in France, in the department of the Haute-Saone, qauld seera to confirm this
suspicion of Cuvier, that the new specimen sent by M. Borson belongs to a new
species, and would leave still undecided the question of the existence of the great
mastodon ou the old continent.

ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. 349

their great celebrity in Europe until the years 1760 and 1770, when
they were made known by the Memoirs of Collinson and of William
Hunter.

Notices of some of those which Iam about to mention, were in
existence long prior to that period; but naturalists had passed them
by unregarded, for want of objects of comparison; and when the
teeth of the Ohio had become known, they confounded the others with
them, so that it has been reserved for me to point out. the specific dif-
ferences of those mentioned before my time, and to make known, for
the first time, many of which the world were wholly ignorant.

To begin with 1656, we find a figure, which may be easily recog-
nized in the ‘‘Museo” of Moseardi, page.122: it is announced to be the
tooth of a giant. A second was published by Grew in 1681, (Mus.
Soc. Reg. pl. xix, fig. 1), under the title of ‘‘ The petrified Tooth of
a Marine Animal.” Camper alludes to this figure (Nov. Act. Petrop. ii,
p- 259) as if it were belonging to the species of the Ohio.

In 1715, Réaumur, describing the ateqabice mines of Simorre, and
demonstrating that these turquoises were nothing more than the bones
and teeth of different species, petrified and impregnated with some
metallic oxide, had an engraving taken of a tooth similar to that of
Grew, being likewise under the impression that it might have belonged
to some marine animal. (Mem. Acad. Sciences, 1715, p. 174).

In 1755, Dargenville represented one entire, which he too was of
opinion was the production of a fish unknown. (Oryctology, pl. xviii,
fig. 8). Knorr gave another of them in his “ Monuments,” plate viii;
and Walsh, in his Commentary upon those plates, contented himself
with a reference to Dargenville. Neither of these authors specifies
the origin of his piece.

In the meantime, some specimens of the teeth of Simorre had been
brought home, and deposited in the King’s Museum. Daubenton de-
serihied them, but without figures (Nat. Hist. xu, No. 1109, 1110, and.
1111,andadded to them No. 1112),the piece represented by Réaumur, ~
under the title of Petrified Teeth, bearing a resemblance to those of
the hippopetamus; while to those of the Ohio with six denticuli, the
only « ones of that immense species then known to him, he gave the
name of “fossil teeth of the hippopotamus.”

From that period he distinguished the one from the other, to a cer-
tain point ; but they were soon utterly confounded.

In 1767, Joseph Baldasson described and represented in the Monin
of the Academy of Sienna, vol. ili, p. 243, two large portions of the
lower jaw, found at Mount Follonico, near Monte-Pulciano, and pro-
nounced. the teeth to be precisely similar to those of Guettard, which
belonged to the large species.

One of these teeth, a very large one, was found at Trévoux, in 1784,
by M. de Lolliére, in a hillock of sand. It was noticed in 1785, by
M. de Morveau, in the 6th vol. of the Academy of Dijon, page 102, as
if it had belonged to the species of Ohio.

Camper likewise speaks of it under thismame (Nov. Act. Petrop. ii),
as does Merk in his third Letter, p. 28.

This same year, 1785, Idéphonse Kennedy described three portions
of these teeth, and gave drawings of them in the new Philosophical

350 oN THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

Memoirs of the Academy of Bavaria, vol. iv, page 1; he likewise
takes them for the same species as those of Ohio. They were found
on the 6th of April, 1762, near Reichenberg, in Lower Bavaria, in a
sand pit, thirty feet beneath the surface, from which some peasants
were raising materials for the repair of the high roads. To this speci-
men the author joins the anterior portion of the jaw of a rhinoceros
exhumed at the same time.

In 1786, after all the labours of Daubenton, of Camper, and so
many others, Guettard, who had himself published the figure of a
tooth of Ohio, thirty-four years previously, having again occasion to
give the figure of the tooth of the animal found at Montabusard, near
Orleans, still continued to doubt whether he was to attribute it to an
hippopotamus, or one of the cetacea.

Hence, we have every reason for saying that naturalists have not
bestowed on those teeth that attention which they deserved ; and it
was not without feelings of surprise that I learned, in the course of
my correspondence, that they were so very common in different parts
of Europe and of America.

In fact, besides those of Tuscany, Simorre, Bavaria, and Trévoux,
which were previously described, I have seen some from Sort, near
Dax, in the museum of the late M.de Borde. Mr. G. A. Deluc has
sent me one from the neighbourhood of Arti in Piedmont. M. Fabroni
has sent me casts of those of the Val d’Arno, deposited in the museum
at Florence. M. Faujas has given me drawings of three, one of
which was found at Rochetta di Tanaro, near Asti, another at the
foot of the Alps, and the third near Padua. All those brought
from Peru by Dombey and Humboldt, as well as those found by
the latter at the Gicnt’s Camp, near Santa Fé de Bogota, in Terra
Firma, are also similar.

Since the publication of my first edition, I have been handed one
from the deparment of l’Isére. -M. Chouteau has sent me the frag-
ments of some from Avaray, near Beaugency, found with some morsels
of paleetheriums, of ruminants, and of trionyx.

M. Biot has sent mea very large one, still adhering to a portion of
its jaw. It came from Santa Fé de Bogota, and probably from the
Giant’s Camp likewise. I saw at Florence the casts of two very hand-
some and very large germs, with six pair of denticuli.

The originals were found at Palaia, between San-Miniato and Leg-
horn, and arein the museum of the late M. Baldovinetti, provost of
the Chapter of Leghorn. The Cabinet of the Academy of Turin, of
the Institute of Bologna, of the University of Pisa, and of the Roman
College, have presented me with specimens more or less considerable.
M. George Santé, professor at Pisa, has given some teeth found at
Sienna, which I have deposited in the King’s Museum. [also brought
some with me from Rome, which were found near Monte- Verde.

But a short time since, M. Seemmerring announced to me in a let-
ter, dated the 5th of April 1819, that some had been discovered at
Darmstadt, at Alzey, not far from Worms, and near the lake of Zurich
in Switzerland, casts and fragments of which had been sent to him
from those several places.

The same learned man, in the Appendix of his Memoir, read to the

ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. 351

Academy of Bavaria, on the teeth found by Kennedy, tells us, that
there is a jaw bone of this animal in the Museum of the University of
Erlang. The usual story was, of course, in circulation, that it had been
exhumed in 1645, near Krembs, not far from the Danube, and that it
must have belonged to a giant twelve feet in height. Hence it is evi-
dent that this must be a part of the supposed giant found near Krembs
in 1645, mentioned by divers authors.

The late Abbé Amoretti, in a letter to M. de la Torre, archbishop of
Turin, inserted in the Memoirs of the Italian Institute, on the tooth of
Rochetta di Tanaro, announces his having seen a tooth at Vienna, in
the house of the Baron Joseph de-Brudern. It was found on the estate
of that gentleman in Hungary. In the Imperial Museum he noticed
half of a lower jaw which had come from Moravia.

André Stiitz speaks of teeth of the same species as this j jaw being
found in Lower Austria, to the south of Vienna, near Briinn, at Ent-
zersdorf and at Modling *.

In the 24th volume of the Memoirs of the Academy of Turin, page
167, and plates 1 and 2, the Abbé Borson has described and represented
two portions of a jaw, containing one tooth each, which were found
near Asti more than sixty years since, as also two germs found at
Castelunova-Calcea, in the same province.

In addition to this, I have had the drawings and originals of several
others, the origin of which I could not discover; but which, taken in
conjunction with those already mentioned, furnish decisive proofs that
the animals to which they belonged must have left a very great quan-
tity of spoils.

Like those of the great mastodon, these teeth are all furnished with
conical denticuli more or less numerous, which are worn down by mas-
tication; and, as we shall see hereafter that the shapes of some of the
bones found with these teeth also resemble those of the great mastodon,
and that there is reason to believe that they were accompanied by tusks,
we may thence conclude, with a very great show of probability, that the
animals of which they formed part were also of the species of the mas-
todon.

But again, these teeth may be distinguished from all those of the great
mastgdon of Ohio, by some specific characters. The principal and most
general is, that the sides of their crowns are furrowed more or less
deeply, and sometimes they terminate in many. denticuli; sometimes
they are accompanied by other and smaller cones upon their sides, or in
their intervening spaces; the result of which is, that mastication pro-
duces at first upon this crown many small circles, and then a trefoil
shaped figure, but never lozenges.

These trefoil figures have frequently caused these teeth to be taken
for the teeth of the hippopotamus. We have already seen that Dau-
benton found some resemblance between them ; and on the subject of
this hippopotamus we shall have occasion to mention similar opinions
entertained by Peter Camper and M. Faujas; but it is easy to guard
against the recurrence of this error. Independently of the sizes, the
teeth of the hippopotamus never have more than four trefoil figures,

* Oryctography of Lower Austria. Vienna, 1807, page 74.

352 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

while those of which I speak have most commonly from six to ten.
The anteriors alone may give rise to some doubt ; but we shall see in its
proper place that they are as easily distinguishable.

It is more difficult to assign the specific characters of these diverse
teeth, with reference to each other, for they do not bear a perfect
resemblance. There is in the first place the difference of posi-
tion in the jaw, which may be judged of by the number of denticuli;
then comes the difference of age, which may be determined by the de-
gree of detrition. Let us examine and compare them successively, ac-
cording to those relations.

I begin by a tooth of Simorre (plate 26, fig. 4). It is the same de-
scribed by Daubenton, in his Natural History, Vol. xii, No. 1109.

It is 0,116 long, and 0,06 broad, and yet is very much worn. Ofits
six pairs of denticuli, the two anterior are confounded in a disc of four
lobes (a 6); one of the middle (c) is already trefoil shaped, leaving a
small round isolated disc ; the other (d) is elliptic and double lobed ;
the last (ef) only show four discs, one of which begins to become lobed.
We may see that had it been a little more worn, this tooth would have
had three discs of four lobes. Behind is a fang of two blunted and fur-
rowed denticuli, one of which (g) is higher than the other.

This crown is less worn, and consequently higher on the side of the
unlobed discs (a de), which we shall soon see form the external side.
Two thick roots, both broken, take a backward direction. ‘the poste-

rior (2) is by far the thicker; in fine, there is in front (marked k) a .

flatness, giving rise to the supposition that this tooth had been pre-
ceded by another.

I have found the same tooth still implanted in the palate. In the
cabinet of M. de Borda, at Dax, it has the same protuberances, the same
figures, and the same proportions (plate 28, fig. 2); it is merely a little
smaller and less worn; the two anterior discs were not confounded.

The fact is, that it was preceded by a tooth with two pairs of denti-

culi (@ b); and we may observe behind (at e), that it must have been
followed by another. ‘

I have a third time found the same tooth among those which Dombey
brought home from Peru (plate 26, fig. 7), fixed in a portion of the
palate, and perfectly similar to that of Simorre in the outlines and pro-
portions, but a little more worn. :

The two centre discs are at present confounded in a quadrilobed disc,
and the two posteriors are not far from being so. There isno appear-
ance of a small tooth in front; its socket has disappeared, and the body
of the existing tooth begins to exhibit symptoms of decay. More
backward, towards b, may be seen the remains of the socket of a tooth
which was next in succession.

- The tooth of Peru is precisely the same in length as that of Simorre, -

although it falls short of it a little in front, and it does not exceed it in

breadth by more than 0,005. ‘Thus, in spite of the distance of the.

places, it is impossible not to recognize these two teeth as belonging to
the same species. Hence, setting aside the shapé of the tooth, these
teeth go the length of proving that there were two others in the upper
jaw of the animal, one in front, with only four denticuli, and one be-
hind. They, moreover, prove that these teeth displaced each other

ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. 353:

from back to front, as in the elephant and the mastodon, and that the
anteriors disappeared at a certain period.

I have further reason to believe that the anterior tooth was suscept-
ible of being replaced from top to bottom, as is the case in the hippopo-
tamus, whose replacing teeth descend also. My reason for thinking
so is, that this little tooth ef Dax is not worn as yet, and yet it must
have come after the great one, which is worn.

This tooth of Dax further helps us to recognize a tooth of Simorre
of our Museum (plate 26, fig. It is half worn, and presents the
figure of four lobes in front, ea two round discs behind.

"A similar tooth (plate 28, fig. 14), but that it is not worn, and only
presents four cones, is in ane. cabinet of M. Hammer, who is unac-
quainted with its origin. The circumstance of its having a small fang,
might lead us to suppose that it belonged to the opposite jaw, conse-
quently to the inferior; for the tooth of Dax belonging to the upper has
no fang, neither has that of Simorre. Moreover, this may be a sucking
tooth.

The identity of the species of the teeth of Simorre, and of those
brought home by Dombey, being once sufficiently established, we
may ‘proceed still farther.

Among the specimens of Btoal fer is a large fragment of a lower jaw

(plate 28, fig. 4), at a fourth of its natural size. The fore part ter-
minates in a species of beak like that of the elephant and the masto-
don. ‘Thus our actual species had not, like the two latter, either
incisors or canine teeth in the lower jaw.
- This piece contains two teeth: the posterior, 0,175 long, and 0,075
broad, had five pairs of denticuli, the posterior of which were the
shorter ; the two first are now amalgamated in quadrilobed figures, the
two succeeding are almost in the same predicament, the two last and
the fang are untouched. Such then is the posterior lower molar tooth
of this animal.

In this particular it is the external side which is the most worn, con-
sequently the internal is the most prominent, and this must be so to
enable the lower teeth to correspond with the upper, where the con-
trary is the case.

It is the external denticuli which form trefoil figures, and above, it
is the internal: this too is the result of a general law which obtains in
_ herbivorous animals ; when both sides of a tcoth do not resemble each
other, they are placed contrariwise in the two jaws. Thus, ruminants
have the convexity of the crescents of their upper teeth inside, and
those of the lower outside.

It is easy to see by the convexity of this long tooth being behind,
that it was not followed by another. That i in front G is so anne worn
and mutilated, that its figure is no longer distinguishable: but I very
soon hit upon the means of remedying this deficiency.

We have got in the Museum, a tooth of Simorre of six denticuli
(Daub. x11. ‘No. mex), differing from the former in its not having a
fang. (See plate 28, fig. 3).

It was natural to look upon it as the corresponding tooth of the
former, in the lower jaw; this appeared the more natural, as the last
lower teeth of the hippopotamus also differ from the ‘corresponding

354 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

upper teeth, by the want of a fang. ‘The lower jaw of Baldassari re-
duces this to an absolute certainty, for we have there this tooth of six
denticuli in its place, and without a fang. ,

The posterior-superior is now the only tooth remaining to complete
our knowledge of the jaw-teeth of this animal.

- It is not very difficult to perceive that it is the tooth of Trévoux
(plate 26, fig. 5). It is nothing more than a germ, still unimpaired
and without roots. It is 0,185 long, 0,08 broad, and 0,06 high, from
the neck to the top of one of the denticuli. Five deep furrows divide
it into six rows of prominences, each of which, except the last, is
subdivided into two. ‘The partial prominences on one side have in
front a protuberance, which must necessarily have given them a trefoil
shape had the tooth been half worn. Those of the opposite side would
have remained elliptic. Hence the latter are the interior. The last
prominence or fang is a large uneven papilla, surrounded by others of a
smaller size.

There is then a fang or an uneven collection of prominences in this,
which are not on the posterior-inferior tooth. And this is an additional
circumstance analagous to what obtains in the hippopotamus, and a
relation with the superior middle tooth.

All these teeth, when compared one by one with the corresponding
teeth of the great mastodon of Ohio, present us with a very strong
characteristic, of which I shall avail myself for denominating this
species : it is this, that they are much more narrow in proportion than
they are long. .

Having once ascertained these characteristics, I nave had no difficulty
in recognizing isolated teeth or their fragments belonging to this
species, when they have presented themselves to my view.

Figure 7, of plate 29, is a posterior-superior, preserved with its
congenerie in the cabinet of the late M. Baldovinetti, of Leghorn.
Though very similar to that of Trévoux (plate 26, fig. 5), its protuber-
ances are a little smoother, and its fang is more prolonged: it is 0,248
long, and 0,096 broad in its centre (marked d).

Figure 3, of plate 26, is the anterior half of a superior-posterior
from the cabinet of M. Drée, the denticuli of which are only just
beginning to be impaired. ‘The roots are not developed.

Figure 7, plate 28, is one nearly similar, in which the fang alone is
a little more worn.

Figure 10, plate 27, is one from the collection of M. Hammer, more
advanced in detrition, and with more strongly developed roots.

Figures 1 and 2, plate 29, is ina similar stage. It was found at
Rochetta di Tanaro near Asti, and belongs to M. d’Incisa of Milan.
M. Faujas has given me a drawing of it: it is as white as wax.

Figure 6, plate 26, was brought from Peru by Dombey. Detrition
is here very forward in front, while it has not commenced behind, a
circumstance for which I feel at a loss to account.

Figure 13, plate 27, was found in the Val d’Arno, and presented by
M. Fabbroni. It is the posterior part of one which has not been worn! -

Figure 8, plate 27, was found in the Val d’Arno. It is the posterior
part of a lower back tooth, not much worn. |

Figure 3, plate 29, is the same part but more worn, preserved in

4

ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. 355

the cabinet of Padua. I am also indebted to M. Faujas for this draw-
ing. It is a bright red colour, and its enamel is very glittering.

Fi igure E plate 26, is the germ of a posterior lower tooth of Simorre,
broken in front. (Daubenton, No. mcxr).

Fig. 6, plate 27, is the same part, not at all worn: it was brought
by M. de Humboldt from the Giant’s Camp; and fig. 4 is a less con:
siderable part, which had begun to be worn.

Figure 1, plate 28, comes from Simorre, it is the first range of a
posterior upper tooth, which has not come out or been worn.

Some pieces have been too much mutilated to allow of our determin-
ing them with accuracy. Such for instance is the drawing of a tooth
from the valley of the Arno, broken at both ends (plate 27, fig. 9);
the tooth with a longitudinal fracture, found in the neighbourhood of
Asti, by M. G. A. Deluc, (plate 27, fig. 7); that of the « cabinet of the
Count d’Aris at Padua, found in the Alps, and fractured behind (plate
29, fig. 4) ; that of the cabinet of the University of Pisa (plate 29, fig.
6), fractured towards the back and the internal edge, but remarkable
for more numerous wreaths than any of the others. Nevertheless, all
these teeth proceed from the same species, although we may be unable
to assign them their place.

A most interesting piece, and one which serves to prove to what a
degree detrition operates in wearing down the teeth of this animal, is
the portion of the jaw, represented (plate 28. fig. 5). It has been
placed in the King’s Museum, and it is believed to have been found in
France. The great posterior molar alone is there remaining. Its
crown presents no other appearance than a uniform dise of ivory.
Even the socket of the anterior molar has disappeared.

Having thus recounted in their proper places all the jaw-teeth of
this secondary species of mastodon, it remains for me to point out
and to describe the other bones belonging to it, of which unfortu-
nately, we have very few.

Of the skull we have only two slight portions of the palate, to which
I already had occasion to allude, and which, as they are fractured on
every side, do not present us with any character.

The plate preserved in the British Museum, and represented by
Camper (Nov. Act. Petrop ii, plate 8), belongs to this species, and not
to that of Ohio, as that learned anatomist was led to think. A draw-
ing on the natural scale, given me by M. Wiedeman, shows us in the
posterior molar, all the shapes of our narrow teeth, which were ren-
dered indistinguishable in the engraving.

Hence, we learn »by this specimen that the upper grinders of the
narrow-toothed mastodon diverge towards the front like those of the
great mastodon of Ohio.

It is more than probable from analogy, that the species of which I
am speaking had tusks similar to those of the species of Ohio; and
we have a further confirmation of this in the assurance of Daubenton
(Nat. Hist. xi, No. 1011), that he observed some ivory among the
specimens sent from the turquoise mines of Simorre. This ivory was!
no doubt, the produce of the same animals, as were the jaw-teeth
which yield the turquoises. ,

I myself have end two plates of ivory among the fragments sent

356 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

to me from Avaray by M. Chonteau. But, in order to have a positive
proof, it would be requisite that a tusk, or at least its socket, should
be found with a portion of the jaw bone still adhering to it; and this

has not occurred. nutty

The lower jaw is most certainly that of an animal with long tusks.
That of Peru (plate 28, fig. 4), judging by such portions of it as I
have in my possession, is very similar to that of Ohio: it is merely a
little higher in proportion ; its inferior edge is less rectilinear, and its
external surface is more knobbed. The holes of the chin are likewise
more advanced. Its length from the extremity of the great jaw-tooth
to the anterior angle is 0,35. The same measurement gives 0,40 in
that of Ohio; it is precisely the proportion subsisting between their
great teeth, being 0,20 and 0,175 in length. But the proportion of
‘their breadth is very different, being 0,115 and 0,075. Hence, the de-
nomination of narrow-toothed mastodon is amply justified by the fact.

The height of the jaw of Peru is 0,12; of that of Ohio 0,18. Their
thickness towards the centre of the great tooth is 0,14 and 0,15.
Thus, the former is not so high, but 1s more knobbed in proportion.

Compared to that of the elephant, the jaw of the narrow-toothed
mastodon has its anterior projection longer and narrower towards its
centre ; it is not truncated so vertically ; its chin holes are one behind
the other, and not one below the other, as in the elephant: }

The lower jaw of Baldassari (Mem. of Sienne, vol. ii, plates 6 and
7) supplies those parts towards the back, which are wanting in that
of Dombey. It shows us that the narrow-toothed mastodon had those
parts more rounded than the great mastodon, and that, in this par-
ticular, it bore a greater resemblance to the elephant.

All these characters are discernable in the jaw attributed to an
elephant, kept in the Museum at Florence, and represented by M.
Nesti (An. Mus. Flor., vol. i, plate 1, igs. 1 and 2), and they induce
me to refer it to the species at present under discussion. Conse-
quently, I feel myself authorised to conclude, that the narrow-toothed
mastodon had the projection of.the lower jaw dilated in front, and
truncated as we may observe it in this jaw at Florence.

Of the great bones of the extremities, we have nothing more than
a tibia, brought from the Giant’s Camp by M. de Humboldt. Its
angles are all very much mutilated, which renders its characters very
indeterminate. It is represented at a fourth of its size, plate 28, figs.
6599, Oba, x

Although a little thicker in proportion than that of Ohio, its general
formation ts not very different. It is 0,40 long, and 0,15 broad at
the upper extremity. We may also observe, that it is short in pro-
portion to the teeth, for the latter, as well as the jaws, are only one-
eighth less, while the tibia is more than a third. The narrow-toothed
mastodon must then have been much lower upon its limbs, so that its
trunk would be shorter, &c.; but I am forgetting that a single bone
will not justify me in indulging in conjectures. eS

' M. Canali tells us of his being in possession of a tibia found near.
the Tiber, which he believes to have belonged to the mastodon, but he
neither gives us a drawing or any precise description of it*.

* In his correspondence with M, Spadoni,

ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. 357

In the Museum of the Academy of the Fisiocritici at Sienna, I
observed and took a drawing of the fragment of a pelvis found with
the jaw described by M. Baldassari, but its characters were not suffi-
ciently marked to make it worth my while to make a drawing of the jaw.

Of the fragments ef M. Chonteau, a bone of the metacarpus alone
is perfectly distinguishable. It bears a strong resemblance, in
minature, te that ef an elephant.

It would*appear that the narrow-toothed mastodon is more fre-
guently to be found accompanied by marine bodies than the great
species of Ohio. Réaumur, indeed, does not mention shells in his
description of the turquoise mines of Simorre ; he merely states that
the teeth and benes are feund on a whitish earth, covered and in-
crusted with a fine grey, and sometimes a blueish sand, mixed with
small stones, and that on this there is another bed resembling river
sand.

The great teeth are accompanied by others smaller, the proportions
of which are too inaccurately sketched to allow us to form an exact
estimate of the species to which they may belong. Some of them,
however, appeared to me to be the anterior teeth, with four denticuli
of the same animal, and the others those of the great fossil tapir.

I cannot account for Réaumur’s placing Simorre in Lower Lan-
guedoc, in which he has been imitated by all those who have written

after him. -This little town, at present included in the department of
Gers, formed part of the county of Estarrac, in Gascony. It is
situated on the river Gimont. According to Réaumur, teeth of a
similar description are found lower down at Gimont, as well as at
Auch, on the river Gers. I know it to be a fact, that in this latter
place the teeth of the gigantic tapir were discovered.

The specimen of M. de Borda is not affected by a similar uncer-
tainty. It was found at Sort, not far from Dax, in the department
Des Landes, in a bed most positively formed ef marine substances,
with the jaws of a species of dolphin, of which I shall speak hereafter,
glossopetiz, and some jaws, which I recognised as proceeding from
diodons and tetrodons, when I observed them in the museum of the
owner.

-Baldassari does not mention what substances were found in com-
pany with the jaw described by him. He confines himself to stating
that it was discovered by the sliding down of a little hillock, and that
the neighbouring country abounds in marine productions; nay more,
that the large vertebre of the cetacez are found on the ridge of Mount
Follonico. The tooth of Trévoux was found by M. Lollicre, in the
interior of a hillock of sand: no mention is made of any other fossils
which might have been found there likewise.

With regard to the bones of South America, the old Spanish writers
have made them the subjects of numerous marvellous legends. From
them they have derived their ideas of the race of giants, who in the
early ages inhabited Peru, whose exploits may be seen in the Spanish
Gigantology of Torrubia, or in a work of more surpassing excellence,
the History of Pedro Crega, copied by Garcillasso, book ix. chap. 9.

Mereover, we meet with notices of these bones of imaginary giants
in the works of divers travellers. Lengentil affirms that he saw the

VOL. L HU

858 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

remains of them on his route to Peru, and even that his guides pointed
out to him traces of the thunder by which they were destroyed*.

Some of the teeth thus attributed to giants, are still preserved at
Lima, either in the Museum begun in 1792, or im the custody of
curious individuals f.

It is most probably from a similar tradition, that one of the places
where these bones are found in the greatest abundance, lying near
Santa-Fe de Bogota, has received the name of the Giants’ Camp.
M. de Humboldt says, there was an immense collection of them there.
Those which he brought home from it are penetrated with marine salt.

We find more frequent allusions to the giants’ bones of Mexico
than to the former; but as J have not seen any teeth coming from
South America belonging to the species at present under discussion,
I am inclined to think that those Mexican bones must belong to the
large species of Ohio, or to the fossil slephant ; for + know that both
are found i in that country.

A peculiarity connected with the bones of South America, is the
extraordinary height at which they are sometimes found. The Giants’
Camp is one thousand three hundred toises above the level of the sea.

They are likewise found in the low places. In a letter to Joseph de
Jussieu, of which I shall again have occasion to speak, we read, that
as the inhabitants of St. Helena, near Guayaquil, were employed in
digging some wells, they discovered some immense bones, no doubt
belonging to this species.

Dombey has not signified the place of discovery of the specimens
brought home by him: he merely states that they were impregnated
with lumps of native silver. I have not been able to discover any
traces of it, but the bones were in several places incrusted with a hard ©
ferruginous sand, and as the spangles of the silver of Peru are fre-
quently found in the sand, it is possible that some might have been
attached to these specimens.

Don George Juan { tells us that veins of silver are found in the
skeletons of the Indians who perished of old in the mines. Perhaps
there is some connexion in those two facts.

It is to be regretted that the pretended turquoises yielded by the
teeth exhumed at Simorre, have not acquired a sufficient value in the
market to induce a continuation of the works: had that been the case,
most probably we should now be in possession of a much greater num-
ber of the component parts of the animal to which they belong; but
besides that the’greater part of them were deficient in consistency, and
split when submitted to the action of the fire, those which resisted
that action rarely assumed a perfectly uniform or brilliant colour.

ADDITIONS TO THIS SECTION.
Addition to page 350.

M. Rousseau, a farmer at Angervillé, in Beauce, has sent me the
drawing of a large jaw tooth of the narrow-toothed mastodon, found

* Voyage Round the World, by Legentil, 1728.
+ Literary Journal of Geettingue, Feb. 27, 180 6.
+t Travels in Peru, 4to. p. 527."

“@N THE BONES OF THE- MASTODON. 359

at Chevilly, near Orleans, embedded in a layer of calcareous marl.
It is a lower jaw tooth without any roots, and with its denticuli quite

perfect. It is 0,14 long, and 0,066 broad.
Another Addition.

The neighbourhood of Avaray, in the department of tho Loire and
Cher, appears te abound in benes of the rhinoceros, the gigantic
tapir, and the mastodon.

_ Mr. Lockhart, member of the Royal Society of Sciences at Orleans,
read a paper to that body, on the 5th of January, 1821, on the depot
discovered by M. Chouteau, which I have already had occasion to
notice, and which J shail speak of hereafter, in the second sections of
chapters iv. and x. ;
__ “These bones,” says Mr. Lockhart, ‘lie outside the valley of the Loire,
between the high road and the village of Avaray, in a bed of sand
immediately reposing on the layer of fresh water calcareous substance,
which constitutes the plain of Beauce. This sand presents great
variety in its composition; it is formed of small calcareous fragments,
and, of quartz differing in size and colour. It contains particles of
drown clay, yielding a fetid odour, and blackened fragments of car-
bonated chalk and silex. ;
“Its entire mass is hard, greyish, and sometimes coloured yellow
by oxide of iron. We may observe in it large brown spots, which
are owing to the slow decomposition, and to the carbonate of the
organic substances. It is a metre in thickness, and it appears to
form a peculiar bason, stretching to the south of the quarry (of fresh
water gravel), where its outline may be observed. Its position is
rather elevated, being on the slope of a hill 20 metres above the
surface of the valley of the Loire.”

This observer having had the kindness to send me the bones which

he collected, 1 recognized among them divers fragments of those of

the mastodon, viz. :—
1. Many fragments of jaw teeth, perfectly characterised as belonging

to that species.

2ndly. A left caleaneum very much mutilated, but yielding, not-
withstanding, the general character of the family of the proboscidians,
while the specific characters were at the same time very distinct.
_ The inferior internal apophysis is broken, and has disappeared alto-
gether, with its astragalian facette. The internal edge of thecuboidian
surface is also fractured, but the largest part of it is still remaining.
The posterior tuberosity has been very fairly preserved, as also the
articulation of the fibula, and a part of the internal astragalian facette.

Compared with the calcaneums of the elephant and of the great
mastodon, its posterior tuberosity is much longer and less swollen at
the end: the facette towards the fibula rises as in the great mastodon,
as high as the external astragalian, along which it is placed. The
cuboidian facette is higher and narrower than in the elephant; the tu-
berosity beneath the inferior edges of this facette is not so large, so that
this calcaneum, mutilated as it is, would in itself be sufficient to indi-
cate a particular species of proboscidians.

H H 2

360 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

Its greatest length, from the extremity of its posterior fibers to
the upper edge of the cuboidian facette, is 0,19.

Its greatest height, from the summit of the facette joining the fibula,
to the inferior tuberosity, is 0,11.

This height corresponds almost exactly with that of an elephant
eight fect in height.

3rd. A large bone of the carpus, mutilated but distinguishable. It
is similar to the corresponding part of the elephant, but it is narrower
in proportion. Its lower lateral facette for the index, is also a little
larger in front. It is 0,06 in height, 0,07 broad, and 0,08 in anterio-
posterior diameter. Some rather large fragments of ivory were found
in the same bed—a circumstance tending to prove that the narrow-
toothed mastodon had tusks.

But a more decided proof of this is afforded by a discovery made in
the department des Hautes Pyrenees, at Sariac, in the canton of Cas-
telnau, in the valley of the Gers ; de in a marl pit, 24 feet deep,
situated at a quarter of a mile from the river.

M. Lourtau, a young physician of that country, has sent me the
most interesting specimens found in that quarter; they consist of
three entire grinders, two fragments of grinders, and several sections of
tusks, large and small.

The two first jaw teeth have the usual four pair of lobed denticuli,
and alittle fang. The two points of the anterior pair are much worn,
and present us with irregular trefoil figures.

One of those of the second pair is also somewhat worn, the remain-
der are entire. The crown of these teeth is 0,14 long, and 0,075
broad in front. The enamel is precisely similar in every respect to
that of the tooth of Simorre. It is of a blueish white in many places,
shaded with a reddish hue.

The third is attached to a section of ivory, quite altered and incrust-
ed with a sort of stalactite crust, 0,27 in length. It is pointed and
compressed ; its section is 0,7 in its greatest diameter, and 0,5 in its
smallest, but it joins other sections, with which it forms a tusk at least
0,86 in length, with a diameter at the base of 0,13. There are other
fragments also corresponding with each other,and forming atusk of more
than a metre in length, with a diameter of 0,13 at the base. The two
last specimens unite and form a section 0,52 long, with the same di-
ameter as the others. These three portions of tusks appear to have
been almost straight. The ivory is very much altered; the incrusta-
tion which has formed upon it, and which has even penetrated into the
interstices of its plates, is of a greenish grey, intermixed wth numer-.
ous hard sharp plates.

But the most important fragment is a section pee ater arched, 0,14
long, and though broken at both ends, its thickness is not sensibly di-
weer: It must have formed part 5: a long tusk, which must un-
doubtedly have projected from the mouth, and yet it is enveloped in a
coat of real and very hard enamel, not at all so tender as the crusts of
the tusks of the elephant.

The outline of this fragment of a tusk is a very regular oval, mea-
suring 0,065 in its createst diameter, and 0,05 in its smallest.

The process-of decomposition has divided its layers into concentric

ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. 361

rings, similar to those observable in fossil ivory, but the figures have
been subsequently filled by a ferruginous or spathic crystallization. I
have not been able to discover those lines, disposed like lozenges,
which characterize so distinctly the ivory of the elephant.

Notwithstanding the correspondence existing between this tusk and
that of the hippopotamus, its hollow is not the same; however, it is
plain that the narrow-toothed mastodon bore a resemblance to this
animal in this particular, as well as in the division of the protuberances -
of its jaw-teeth into trefoil shapes.

Fresh discoveries have recently been made of the spoils of this
animal in Tuscany.

The Chevalier Fossombroni, minister to his Highness the Grand Duke,
as profound a philosopher as he is a virtuous and enlightened states-
man, has sent me a drawing representing a considerable portion of the
jaw, with a tooth of eight denticuli, perfectly distinguishable.

This specimen was discovered by some peasants at Bettolli near the
summit of a small acclivity springing from the centre of the valley of
Chiana, a country where the name of M. Fossambroni will be immor-
tal. It was two feet deep ina bed of sand stone, supposed to be marine,
which was interspersed with shells of a very adhesive quality. The
enamel of the tooth is of a grey colour and very hard. It will be ob-
served, that Bettolliis very near Mount Follonico, where Baldassari
found the jaw which he described in 1767, in the Memoirs of the
Academy of Sienna.

Between those two places lies Asina-Lunga, where in 1815 Dr.
Giuli found two jaws of the same species, which he too has presented
to the Academy of Sienna. Hence, we cannot entertain the slightest
doubt of these animals having been numerous in the Valley of Chiana,
at the period when the districts at present forming the territory of Tus-
cany were inhabited by hippopotami, the rhinoceros, and the elephant
of the old world.

It would be most desirable that excavations conducted with intel-
ligence might bring to light, from the bosom of the earth, the remain-
ing bones of so remarkable a species, which must undoubtedly exist not-
far from the jaws. We might then be enabled to reproduce this animal
entire, as we have done with the hippopotamus of the Valley of the
Arno, and the rhinoceros of Parma- This would be a new service ren-
dered to science by Tuscany—that science which is at present so
deeply indebted to her.

Another Addition.

The researches daily made in Tuscany are a more than sufficient
proof how very classical that country is, in the history of fossil
animals.

A discovery has just been made there of the almost complete skele-
ton of a narrow-toothed mastodon. Professor Nesti of Florence is at
present engaged in preparing a description of it. This will forma
most important document in this line of research, and I shall lose no
time in laying its contents before my readers, as soon as it shall have
appeared. The bones of this mastodon are likewise found in Poland.

M. Bojanus, a celebrated anatomist and professor at Wilna, has just

362 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

sent me the drawing of a jaw tooth with four pair of denticuli and a
fang, ina state of perfect preservation. It was found at Tulezyn, a
city of the ancient palatinate of Braklaw, at present comprehended
in the government of Podolia, situated on one of the tributaries of the
Bog. It bears a singular resemblance, in shape and colour, to that of
Lombardy, which I have given in plate 29, fig. 2.

Additional Article on the Narrow-foothed Mastodon, and on the
Bones of the Mammiferous Animals of the Lignites.

In addition to those already recounted, I have received many teeth
of this species, or drawings of teeth, from France, Italy, Germany,
and England. M.Ranzani has sent me the model of a large one found
on the ridge of the Apennines, fronting Bologna. A short time since,
avery superb one was discovered near Montpellier. To the kindness
of M. Veran I am indebted for a fine drawing of this specimen. It
has twelve knobs or hills, all divided, and its length reaches 0,237.
But the finest piece of this kind which has fallen under my observa-
tion, is the half of a lower jaw, which is only defective in a small por-
tion of its coronoid apophysis. A coloured model of it has been sent
to the King’s Museum by the Count de Breuner, supervisor of the
mines of Austria. It was found on the estate of that gentleman, at
Steltenhof, in the circuit of lower Manhatzberg, in lower Austria, and
about three leagues to the north-west of Krembs, where we have seen,
in a former part of the present volume, that in 1645 some bones of this
description, supposed to be those of giants, were found. This half jaw,
according to the account which the Count de Breuner has done me
the honour to address to me, was found on the summit of a hill, at an
elevation of four hundred feet above the Danube. It was lying in a
ferruginous, agglutinated sand, which reposed upon a coarse calcare-
ous layer, and which is covered by the moveable earth, in which the
bones of elephants, and sometimes of the rhinoceros, are found. Thus
the bones of the mastodon are found ata greater depth, and almost inva-
riably broken. Those of the elephant and the rhinoceros are nearer
the surface and more entire. M. de Breuner has moreover made the
extraordinary discovery of no less than five skeletons in the same spot.

This mastodon’s jaw, of which I am speaking, is very similar to that
of the great mastodon; its angle is less rounded than that of the ele-
phant, its inferior edge is more rectilinear, and its beak is more pro-
jecting. It has a first tooth of eight denticuli, and a fang, rather
worn, as well as a second of eight denticuli, but still perfect. Taken
together, they occupy a space of 0,32 in length: the height of the con-
dyloid apophysis, above the inferior edge, is 0,45, that of the coronoid,
0,40; the breadth of the ascending branch beneath the two apophyses,
is 0,3; the height of the dental branch, between the two teeth, is 0,19,
and in front of the anterior, 0,24. From this point, the oblique line
descending to the extremity of the beak is 0,24.

M. Boué, so well known by his geological descriptions of Scotland
and Germany, as well as by his numerous lucubrations, has assured me —
that he saw some of those bones of the mastodon in the Imperial Mu-
seum of Vienna, in a dross which he considered analogous to chalk.
They were found in Leithagebirge, a chain of mountains which sepa-

ON THE BONES OF THE MASTODON. : 363

rates lower Austria to the north of the Danube, from the adjoining
districts of Hungary. These drawings which have been sent to me
by M. Boué, affords incontestable proofs that the bones do in fact pro-
ceed from this species; but perhaps it might be necessary to examine
more accurately the place in which they were found, before ascribing to
them so remote an antiquity.

M. Boué, however, seeks to ground his opinion on some bones of
ruminants, which he has sent me, surrounded by a substance very
similar to our coarse gravel; and he further adduces in support of his
opinion, the lignites of Switzerland, so rich in the bones of the mam-
miferi, of which I am about to treat. In fact, I have not the slightest
doubt of these lignites containing the bones of many great quadru-
peds, and especially of the narrow-toothed mastodon, to which our
observations are more peculiarly directed, as M. Meissner has an-
nounced in the Museum of Natural History of Berne, and in the
Indicateur of the Helvetic Society of Natural History, where he has
described and represented very easily distinguishable portions of the
teeth of mastodons, from the lignites of Keepfnach, on the western
bank of the lake of Zurich.

The Count Vitalliano Borromeo, of Milan, has had the extreme
kindness to submit to my inspection four specimens extracted from the
lignites of Horgen, a little above Kepfnach. Among them is a small
molar of two denticuli, and two fragments of a tusk, perfectly recog-
nizable by their interior texture, similar to that of ivory, and their
enamel longitudinally channelled, like that of the fragment of Sariac,
which I have already mentioned.

I have this moment before my eyes a drawing made by M. Schintz,
professor at Zurich, of three great jaw teeth, two of which are still
adhering to the jaw, and which evidently belong to the mastodon.
These two have: been extracted from the lignites of Keepfnach. A
broken tusk was found with them, which must have been two feet
and a half in length. Its enamel is channelled, like that of the pieces
which I have just described. The mastodon is not the only) species
whose remains are contained in these lignites.

Another drawing by M. Schintz, represents the upper portion of the
jaw of a rhinoceros, probably of the species with partitioned nostrils,
containing three teeth, two of which are still entire. This specimen
comes from Elgg, near Winterthur, on the wena of the canton of
Zurich, and that of Thurgovie.

To the friendship of M. Brongniart I am midebted for the jaw of a
beaver, with very well characterised molars. It comes from the same
place, viz. Horgen, and is still enclosed in the lignites.

- These facts are probably of the same order as those bearing upon the
bones of the Lophiodon of the black lands in the neighbourhood of
Laon, of which I shall treat in the second section of the tenth chapter.
They prove one of two things, either a more remote period for the
existence of the mastodon, than that which the result of my researches
has led me to attribute to it, or the existence of distinctions in the
strata of lignites, more numerous than those which have as yet been
recognized by geologists.

It is not very long since lignites and pitcoal were confounded to-

364 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

gether ; and how much more easy is it to confound the lignites of seve-
ralages. At all events, it must be admitted that this scrutiny is
worthy of the examination of geologists.

Owing to the generous attentions of M. de Humboldt, the museum
has lately been enriched by several fragments of the bones of this mas-
todon, exhumed near Santa-Fé de Bogota, in Columbia, at a place
called Cano del Fiscal. Among the number is a humerus almost com-
plete, anda calcaneum quite entire. The humerus is shorter in pro-
portion than that of the great mastodon. It is 21 inches, or 0,568
long, and seven, or 0,189 broad at its base: thus confirming an idea
suggested to me by a tibia of the same eanton, viz. that the narrow-.
toothed mastodon was shorter limbed than those species to which it
approximates.

SECTION Til.

ON SUME TEETH BELONGING TO THE MASTODON SPECIES, WHICH AP-
PEAR TO INDICATE SPECIES DIFFERING FROM THOSE ALREADY ENU -
MERATED.,

To the kindness of M. Humboldt I am indebted for some teeth from _

South America, whose tuberosities are divided like those of the nar-
row-toothed mastodon; but which have the same square proportions
of those of six denticuli of the Ohio, and which might be taken for
them, were it not for the trefoil figures, which cannot be confounded
with the lozenges of the mastodon of Ohio. There are two sizes of

them. The largest have the same dimensions as the corresponding.

teeth of the Ohio.

M. de Humboldt has brought home one, which he found near the

volcano of Imbaburra, in the kingdom of Quito, 1200 toises high. It

is very much decomposed, and is still covered with voleanic ashes. Its.
enamel is of a reddish tint. It is 0,12 long, and 0,085 broad. (See.

plate 27, fig. 1).

The same accomplished traveller found another specimen of the
same kind at the convent of Chiquitos, near Santa-Cruza de la Sierra,
at the 18th degree of southern latitude, almost the centre of South
America. This fragment is very much mutilated: one of its thiekest
roots is more than six inches in length. The osseous substanee is of a
reddish tint, and the enamel is blackish at its surface. To the same

species I attribute a tooth found in this same province of Chiquitos,.

a drawing of which has been sent me by M. Alonzo, of Bareelona
(plate 27, fig. 12). As it is not entire in its fore part, I cannot de-
signate its place; but from its fang I am inclined to think that it is
either the middle or posterior upper. ;

That district lying on the other side of the Cordillieres, appears to
be very productive of those spoils. The late Joseph de Jussieu, writ-
ing from Lima in 1761, states that in the valley of Tarija, in the
twenty-third degree of southern latitude, at a distance of 150 leagues

from the sea, and at 200 leagues from Potosi, they met with bones and.

petrified teeth in abundance on both sides of the river; that he himself

—
one To

ON THE. BONES OF THE MASTODON. ~ 365

was actually possessed of two molars of prodigious size. He does not
tell us at what precise height these bones were found, but he most
positively affirms that they were not accompanied by shells.

_ The smaller square teeth are one third less in size. They have like-
wise been discovered by M. de Humboldt. I am indebted to him for
one, which he has brought home from the Conception du Chili, in the
thirty- -seventh degree of southern latitude ; it is very much worn, but
in a state of almost. perfect preservation. It is of a blackish hue, 0,08
in length, and 0,06 in breadth. (See plate 27, fig. 5).

Europe has moreover furnished me with two teeth, which I have
looked upon as being much too small to be referred to any of the pre-
ceding species.

The first was sent from Saxony a long time since, by Hugo, a pro-
fessor of Gottingen, to Bernard de Jussieu; and M. Antoine Laurent
de Jussieu’ has had the kindness to communicate it to me, I have
given it (plate 27, fig. 11), at half its natural size. ‘Though perfectly
similar to that of plate 26, fig. 4, it is less by one-third precisely.

If we could suppose it to belong to the same species, we must also:
suppose that its place was more in front of the jaw, as we find an in-
stance of two almost entirely similar in the jaw of the great mastodon
(plate 21, fig. 4). But this instance is not quite conclusive, as the latter
teeth are of "precisely the same size.

I am not aware of the situation in which that tooth was found.

The second comes from Montebusard, near Orleans. It has been
sent to me by M. Defay, who discovered it in a quarry of fresh water
gravel, intermixed with round and flat shells, in which were also found
quantities of the bones of palceotheriums of divers sizes. I give a figure
of it at half its natural size (plate 28, fig. 6). It is the same which
was engraved in the Memoirs of Guettard, vol. vi, tenth Memoir,
plate 7, fig. 4. Its knobs, simply notched, are not so exactly divided
into two points as those of the preceding, which might afford an ad-
ditional reason for suspecting the existence of another species. The
undivided knobs indicate a relation with those of the great tapir, of
which I shall hereafter have occasion to speak. Nevertheless, I do not
think that this tooth is the actual production of that species, asthe
knobs of the latter are more widely separated, and its numerous and
diminutive notches can never be mistaken for papille.

Thus, independently of the great mastodon of Ohio, and of the nar-
row-toothed mastodon, two species perfectly well known and defined
at the present day, I find indications of four mastodons appearing to
form separate species. The two which come from America may be
denominated the mastodon of the Cordillieres, and the Humboldian
mastodon, when their characters shall have been more completely de-
fined and confirmed. ‘To the first of the European species I would
give the name of the small mastodon, and to the second, whose knobs
are not completely divided into papille, that of Tapirian mastodon.

366 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

Additional Note on the Mastodons.

Since the period when Cuvier proclaimed his opinion that the mastodon was not
provided with incisors in its lower jaw, some pieces have been discovered, which go
far to destroy the generality of this proposition. In America some lower jaws have
been found, evidently belonging to young individuals, and furnished with small in-
cisors: other specimens belonging to adults are also provided with them, while some
other jaws, likewise belonging to adults, do not present me with any traces of them.
Some naturalists have been of opinion that these young jaws were those of the
great mastodon, which loses its incisors at a certain period of its growth; in that
case, the only opinion that can be deduced from those specimens of the adults, in
which those teeth are found, is that the epoch of their falling cannot be the same in
all individuals of the species. Others, on the contrary, lean towards the opinion, that
the jaws of every age, in which incisors are found, belong to a different species of
great mastodon. Some anatomical characters, derived from the shape of the jaws,
would seem to justify this opinion.

As for the narrow-toothed mastodon, nothing has as yet come to light contradictory
of the position of Cuvier, with regard to the absence of incisors in the lower jaw.
But M. Kaup, keeper of the Museum of Darmstadt, has found in the sand of the
valley of the Rhine a new species, which might perhaps be more deserving of the
name of the nafrow-toothed mastodon, than that of Cuvier; so decided is the dis-
proportion between the length and breadth of its molars. It is moreover furnished
with long and thick permanent incisors in the lower jaw.

To this we are further bound to add, that during the last three years, some En-
glishmen have discovered on the banks of the Iraouaddy, in the East Indies, no
fewer than two new species of mastodon.—LauR.

a

CHAPTER III.

ON THE BONES OF THE HIPPOPOTAMUS.

In treating of the hippopotamus, I shall pursue the same course I
adopted in the case of the elephant: I shall first describe the osteology
of the species already known, describe the countries it inhabits,
examine into the supposition of the existence of many species, and I
shall then proceed to make a comparison between the bones of the
same species found in the fossil state.

: Such shall be the scope of the present chapter, which I shall divide
into two sections, like that which treats of the bones of elephants.

SECTION I.

ON. THE LIVING HIPPOPOTAMUS.

Articte I.
Observations made upon the Hippopotamus.

_ The history and organization of the hippopotamus has been, and is
at present to a certain extent, less known than that of any other of
the great quadrupeds.

Although we may believe with Rochart, that it is the Behemoth of
Job, the passage relating to it in that book is too vague to serve to
characteriste it.

The description of the hippopotamus, given by Aristotle in his
History of Animals, book ii, chap. 7, is so far removed from the animal
at present known by that name, that we are at a loss for the means
of explaining such an assemblage of blunders. It is true that that
great naturalist points out Egypt as its country, but he goes on to give
it the figure of the ass, the mane and netghing of the horse, and the
cloven foot of the ox (8iynrrv 8 art Bomep Bots.) Its snout ts snubbed, its
lips slightly divided, tts teeth somewhat projecting, and its tail
similar to that of the wild boar ; the skin of its back ts so thick that
jawelins are formed of tt.

We are the more astonished at this ridiculous description, when on
ascending to the sources of this infermation, we find that it is almost
entirely borrowed from Herodotus, who is generally most exact in his
description of whatever he had himself observed. He has even one
error more than Aristotle, for he says, “the tail of the hippopotamus
is likewise similar to that of the horse ;’”’ but to compensate for this,

368 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

he has gone nearer to the truth when he attributes to this animal a
height surpassing that of the largest oxen. (Herodotus Euterp.

71
s Fr 2 these two descriptions one might feel tempted to believe that
the name of the hippopotamus was then applied to a species different
from that which it is at present used to designate, if Diodorus Siculus
did not evidently bring us back to the latter. After ascribing to the
hippopotamus its real ‘figure, he goes on to say, “It is seven feet long,
and approaches in bulk to the elephant. It has on each side three
projecting teeth, larger than the tusks of the wild boar :” however, he
leaves it the cloven foot of the ox, and the tail of the horse. (Diod.
Sic., lib. i.)

Pliny, who must have seen the description of Diodorus, has con-
tented himself with copying that of Aristotle, with the exception of
the height, which he leaves undetermined, and the use of the skin,
which he says “‘is only fit for making helmets and bucklers, so im-
penetrable that they are not even injured.” (Book viii, chap. 25.) To
all this he annexes another error—viz. that the hippopotamus is
covered with hair like the seal. (Book ix, chap. 12.)

And yet, independently of the authority of Diodorus. Siculus, he

had the opportunity of collecting better information on the subject,

since he states in express terms, that “an hippopotamus was shown at
Rome by Scaurus, when he was edile.” (Book viii, chap. 26.)
And we know from Dion, that Augustus exhibited another in his
triumph over Cleopatra. (Dion, book li, p. 655, edition of Reimari.)

Several other hippopotami were exposed after the death of Pliny.
Antoninus exhibited some crocodiles, tigers, and other rare animals,
according to the account of Julius Capitolinus. (Hist. Aug., edition
of Schrev., page 142). Moreover, Dion (book Ixxii, page 1211 and
page 1219), assures us that Commodus exhibited six upon one occa-
sion, and that he killed one with his own hand upon another. We
find by Lampridius (Hist. Aug., page 497), that Heliogabolus was
likewise possessed of some; and by Julius Capitolinus, that there
were some exposed in the reign of Gordian the Third.

If we may place any reliance upon such authority as the verses of
Calpurnius, there were several of these animals at the games of Ca-
rinus, in 284*. Nevertheless, the ancient authors posterior to Pliny,
and the moderns, as far as Fabius Columna, have not given us a
better description of this animal. Oopienus, who calls it a wild horse,
and assigns it to Ethiopia, does nothing more than paraphrase some
passages ; of Aristotle. Ammianus, too, gives it the shape of the horse,
a short tail and a cloven foot. It is true, as he states, that the hip-
popotamus had disappeared from Egypt from the time of the Emperor

* Calpurnius, Eclogue vii, verse 66.
Spectavi vitules, et equorum nomine dignum
Sed deforme pecus, quod in illo nascitur amni
Qui sata riparum venientibus irrigat undis.
It is rather amusing that Mayrault, the translator of Calpurnius, chon have
fancied that crocodiles were the animals alluded to, and should call them CAO

lizards.

j
ai

ON THE BONES OF THE HIPPOPOTAMUS. 369

Julian. (Ammianus Marcellinus, book xxii, chap. 15.) This is
further confirmed by Thémistius, in his twentieth oration.

It is from the circumstance of their having confounded the addition
of Gylius with the text of Athan, that Aldrovandus and Jonston at-
tributed to Aélian a description which Gylius had taken from Diodorus
without acknowledgment. (Atlian. Gyliu, book xi, chap. 45).

Even the description of Achilles Tatius, an Alexandrian author of
the fourth century, pointed out by Schneider as being more correct
than his predecessors, is not entirely exempt from errors. | ‘‘ The hip-
popotamus,’’ says he, “resembles the horse in its belly and its feet,
except that in the latter the hoofs are cloven, Its size is equal to
that of the largest ox; its tail is short, and, like the rest of its body, is
without hair; its head is round, and by no means small; its jaws are
similar to those of the horse; its chin is large; its nostrils are very
much distended, and give forth a burning sulphur; its canine teeth
are bent like those of the horse, but three times the size of the
latter*.”

The ancient artists have succeeded in giving a better idea of this
animal than either the naturalists or the historians. It is represented
in a very distinguishable manner, with the ibis, the crocodile, and the
lotus plant, on the plinth of the statue of the Nile, which formerly
ornamented the Belvidere at Rome, and which is nuw in the Museum
of Arts; the minutic of the feet and teeth alone are there deficient
in accuracy.

The Mosaic of Palestrinum, which the taste of the ancients led
them to decorate with figures of the animals of Egypt and Ethiopia,
presents us with three excellent figures of the hippopotamus towards
the left base. Two of them are pierced with arrows by the negro
hunters, and one is half immersed in the river; but unlike most of
the others, these figures are unaccompanied by a name.

Again we find a figure of it, and as in the former instance, accom-
panied by the crocodile and the lotus, on a carved stone in the cabinet
of the Duke of Orleans.

The medals of Adrian, so frequently representing Egypt and its
productions, also present us with figures of the hippopotamus, the
crocodile, and of the Nile. One of these medals may be seen in the
Augustan History of Angeloni (plate 149, fig. 58), and another in the
Numismata Imperii Romani of Jacob Bieus (plate 39, fig. 7). On
the former of these medals, the hippopotarnus is ridden by a child ; the
crocodile accompanies it on both.

Although the animal’s name is not engraved upon those monuments
it is not the less certain that the figures represented are those of the
hippopotamus, since we learn by the positive testimony of Lucien
and Philostratus, that the Nile was never painted or carved without
being accompanied by the hippopotamus and crocodilef.

Hence, they apply a very sufficient corrective to the deficiencies in
the descriptions of the ancients, and leave no reasonable ground for

* Achilles Tatius, book iv, chap. 2.
+ Lucian., Rhetor. Precept., vol. iii, page 2. Philostratus, book i, imag. 5,
Leipsic edition. ie

870 oN THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

doubt with regard to the true application of the name of the hippo-
potamus.

It would not appear that Christian Europe was favoured with the
sight of a living hippopotamus, as the descriptions of this animal in the
authors of the middle ages*, without even excepting those who, like the
Cardinal Jacques de Vintryt, had visited the country it inhabits, are
nothing more than compilations interspersed with new absurdities, or
misinterpretations of the old. The Arabians were the only people
who, at that period, entertained just notions on this subject. Abdal-
latif, in his account of Egypt, describes the hippopotamus with great
justness and proprietyt.

Bélon and Gylius are the first moderns who saw the hippopotamus
in its natural state, and perhaps they both saw the same animal, for
they both observed it at Constantinople. In his work on fishes, Bélon
speaks of it from memory, illustrating his account with a figure copied
from the medals of Adrian. He rectified the error of the statue of the
Nile, which gave this animal five instead of four toes. Of the teeth,
he merely observes, that they approximate to those of the horse.

Gessner restricted himself to copying the account of Bélon. (Gesn.
Pisc., art. Hippop.)

Gylius, who, as would appear from a letter to the Cardinal d’Ar-
magnac, quoted by Prosper Alpin (de. reb. zg., i, 248), had also seen
one of those animals at Constantinople, probably the same seen by.
Bélon, and yet, as I have already observed, he contents himself with
copying the description of Diodorus Siculus. —

It was not until 1603, half a century after Bélon, that an Italian
surgeon, named Zerenghi, brought from Egypt some skins of the
hippopotamus of both sexes, and published a good description of the
species, with a figure of the female||.

Aldrovandus, who had been shown this female figure by Zerenghi,
caused a copy of it to be engraved for his History of Animals. How-
ever, he did not publish this figure, but another, which was sent to
him, as he tells us, from Padua, no doubt by Prosper Alpin, for we
find the same figure recurring in the works of the latter, which was
not published until 1735. We may see-it in Aldrovandus (De Quadr.
Dig. Viv., book i, page 184), with a separate drawing of the head
(pag e 185).

The learned Fabius Columna had a much better drawing of the
animal brought home by Zerenghi, executed for his own work. It
appeared with a very good description in his Aquat. Obs., page 30, in:
1616. Hence, it was prior to that of Aldrovandus, although the latter
might have been executed before it, supposing it to have come from
Prosper Alpin, for this latter author left Egypt in 1583, after a sojourn
of three years, and died professor, at Padua, in 1617.

Ludolphus published some drawings of it, far preferable to those I

* Jsidore de Séville, Orig., book xii, page 168; Vincent de Beauvais, Spect.
Natur., book xvii, chap. 115; Albert le Grand, de Nat. Anim., vol. vi, page 654.
+ Jacques Vetriac., Natural History, chap. lxxxvi.
f Abdallatif’s Accent of Egypt, translated by M. de Sacy, page 143..
il His dissertation is given as an extract by Buffon, vol. xii, page 24.

ON THE BONES OF THE HIPPOPOTAMUS. 371

have enumerated, in his History of Abyssinia, in 1687, but without
any notice of the source from which they were derived.

In 1689, Jean de Thevenot, in his Travels to the Levant, book ii,
of the second part, chap. 71, page 787, gives a rather detailed ac-
count of an hippopotamus, which was killed at Girge near Cairo, but
unaccompanied by an engraving.

Notwithstanding the knowledge which might have been derived
from these authentic sources, the publication of the work of Prosper
Alpin, which as I have already observed, took place in 1375, was
the commencement of a series of embarrasments to the subject.

He headed his twelfth chapter with the title of «“ The Cher opota-
mus and the Hippopotamus,” he there commences with giving the
figures of two stuffed skins, the one of a large female, the other of its
foetus, which he had seen in the house of the Pacha of Cairo. These
are evidently two skins of the hippopotamus of our times: but the
head, and consequently the teeth, had been carried off with the rest of
the flesh and the bones.

By the absence of these teeth he was led to conclude, that this
could not be the hippopotamus of the Greeks, since, if it were the
latter, it must have had its teeth slightly projecting ; andf having a
short time afterwards observed another skull with teeth at Alexandria,
he published a drawing of this also (the same which Aldrovandus had
published before him), declaring at the same time, that the latter alone
belonged tc the true hippopotamus, as it corresponded more accurately
with the descriptions given by the Greeks.

For the same reason, he concluded that the figures on the plinth of
the statue of the Nile, and those of the medals of Adrian, do not re-
present the hippopotamus, but that imaginary animal whose skin he
had seen without the teeth. ;

It was difficult to avoid this error of the antients, that the teeth pro-
jected from the mouth, when there was no opportunity of seeing the
living animal. These teeth, and more particularly the canine, are so
large, that it is difficult to conceive how they can be contained be-
neath the lips; now the ancients had seen many of these teeth; and
even previous to their having any idea of the figure of the animal to
which tkey belonged, and when they supposed it to be equal to that
of an ass, they made then an article of traffic, and used them as ivory
in the most precious works of art.

Pausanius speaks of the statue of a goddess, the face of which was
formed of those teeth (Pausan Arcad. p. 530), and Cosmas in the time
of the Emperor Justin, mentions his having brought home and. sold
one weighing thirteen pounds, while the largest that we have do not
weigh more than six.

This is, doubtless, the reason why the ancients supposed that: the
teeth of the hippopotamus projected from its mouth like those of the
wild boar. Nevertheless, it is an unvarying fact that the hippopotamus
does not expose its teeth in the slightest degree when its muzzle is
closed: this is attested by many eye-witnesses, and those heads which
have preserved their skin, without its becoming contracted by drying,
prove it still more decidedly : we have one’of these in the Museum.

The ancient figures there, of which I have spoken, give us a faithful

372 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

representation of this animal, and it is useless to i it the existence
of another species in order to explain them.

This was done by Prosper Alpin. To this imaginary species he
gave the name of river-hog, called as he tells us, Chawropotamus, by
the Greeks.

Now none of the ancient Greek writers, at least that I have been
able to discover, ever employed this word Cheropotamus to designate
a definite animal. The Mosaic of Palostrinum, which, by the by,
Prosper Alpin had never seen, exhibits a quadruped with some
scarcely decypherable letters, among which people have fancied they
could discern. xo'for, But as the ancients had a chceeropotamus or
monkey pig, which probably might have been the mandrill, or- some
cynociphalus, and as the figure in question bears some distant re-
semblance to the latter, we can draw no conclusion from thence, in
favour of the existence of a chceropotamus.

Nevertheless, Hermann, in his Table of the Affinities of Quadrupeds,
(John Hermann’s Tabula Affinitatum Animalium, page 96), admits its
existence as if it had been demonstrated ; nay, he goes so far as to say,
that Prosper has very clearly pointed out the difference between the
cheropotamus and hippopotamus; disertis verbis distinguit is his
expression. ‘Thus it is that the cleverest men are led to adopt errors
when the latter are favourable to their general system. Hermann was
attempting to prove that all animals bore a certain affinity to each
other, and were but as links in the great chain of animated beings ;
he found the several species of the order of pachydermata too isolated
to justify his idea: hence, he was under the necessity of trying to per-
suade himself that there were still many unknown species of that class;
and whatever could lead him to suppose the existence of any one of
these, was eagerly embraced by him. Perhaps it may be said, that
the object of my present researches gives me an interest precisely
contrary, and that I may feel, perpetually tempted to efface the
traces which might lead to the discovery of unknown living species, in
order to render the number of the lost more considerable. I felt con-
scious at the outset, that I was incurring this risk, and I shall be ever
on the watch to avoid it; even at this present moment | am far from
denying the existence of species similar to those I have just men-
tioned; all that I mean to say is, that we are without any proof of it.

It has never been sufficiently explained how the two hippopotami of
Zerenghi, and the first of those of Prosper Alpin, had strayed so close
to Damietta, and that of Thevenot to Cairo; nor whence came the se-
cond, which Prosper Alpin saw at Alexandria ; but it is certain that at
present not one of these animals is to be seen below the cataracts.
All the travellers who have visited Egypt during the eighteenth cen-
tury are unanimous upon this subject, and the naturalists attached to
our expedition to Egypt, who ascended the Nile as far as Sienna, did
not meet withasingle one. It is only in Abyssinia, and in the regions
of Africa tothe south of the Atlas, and particularly of the Senegal
and the Cape, that the hippopotamus has been observed in latter
times.

It:'was from the Senegal that the foetus described by Dateien
was brought, as wellas the young hippopotamus of the Museum of

<

ON THE BONES OF THE HIPPOPOTAMUS. 3738

Chantilly, at present in ‘that of the king. It is represented in Hist. Nat.
Supp. to vol. ili, p. 62.

Frof the Cape we have an adult hippopetamus of the cabinet of
Leyden, described by Allamand (Nat. Hist.) and that of the cabinet of
the Stadtholder, at present in our Museum. It was prepared and
described by Klockner.—Hist. Nat. Supp., vol. ii, pp. 306 and 308).

It was at the Cape that Sparmann observed the hippopotamus, and
that Gordon drew up the See nen and figures published by Alla-
mand (Nat. Hist. Supp., vol. v, pp. 1 and 2); and afterwards by
Buffon.

Finally, it was also from the Cape that M. Delalande brought the
skeleton of the adult hippopotamus which conferred an additional value
wpon this edition. Moreover, the species is becoming so rare in that

“country, that it is forbidden to hunt it, and M. al ian le was obliged

to obtain a special permission in order to procure this skeleton.

As for Senegal, their numbers there must be still more inconsiderable,
as I have never been able to obtain one from that country, notwith-
standing the express orders of the minister of Marine conyeyed to the
governor.

Besides the Cape and Senegal, we learn from Barbot and from many
other travellers, that there are numbers of them in Guinea and Conge.
Bruce assures us that they are very numerous in the Nile, in Abys-
sinia, and inthe lake Tzana. Levaillant observed them in all the dis-
tricts of Caffraria, through which he passed, so that almost the whole
of southern Africa is peopled withthem. But are they confined to that
part of the world? It isa long established opinion. Strabo (book xy, p:
1012, Amsterdam edit.), speaking on the testimony of Nearchus, and
Eratosthenes, denies the existence of any in the Indus, although he ad-
mits that Onesicritus affirmed it. Pausanias agrees. with them, and
although Philostratus and Nonna have adopted : the opinion of Onesi-
ceritus, it is certain that no traveller of accredited veracity has ever as-
serted that they are to be found on the Indian continent, even beyond
the Ganges. Buffon paid not the slightest attention to the testimony
of Michael Boyn, who places some in China; so that we are justified
in saying, that it is without the shadow of authority that Linnzus, in
his tenth and twelfth editions, supposes that there must be some at the
mouths of the rivers of Asia. Hence, too, M. Faujas seemed to pro-
ceed upon good authority in denying the existence of the hippopo-
tamus on that continent, but perhaps ‘he should not have extended his
negation to the entire of Asia; for Marsden, an author of some repute,
places the hippopotamus in the number of the animals of the island of
Sumatra. However, it remains to be proved, whether Mr. Marsden
has been deceived or not.

This question is very important inits bearings on zoology and the
theory cf the earth. . The solitary testimony of this single traveller,
the name hippopotamus thrown into a catalogue, without any further
description, raised considerable doubts in my mind; and. having,
moreover, found that the late Péron, deceived by the equivoque of the
name sea calf applied by the Dutch indifferently to the hippopotamus

' and the doujong, had mistaken the teeth of the latter for the teeth of

the hipponotamus, I supposed that the assertion of Mr, Marsden might
VOL. I. HE

374 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS,

have been founded on some similar confusion of names. Mr. Marsden
has since informed us, in his third edition, that he did not advance this
fact upon his own individual observation, but from a drawing @f M.
Whalfeldt, an officer employed in surveying the coast, who had met
with that animal near the mouth of one of the southern rivers of the
island, and had sent a sketch of it to the government. Mr. Marsden
proceeds further to point out that the Society of Batavia, in its first
volume of 1799, counts the hippopotamus among the animals of Java,
and gives it the same Malay name, conda-ayer or kiida-ayer, which it
bears at Sumatra *.

But does this hippopotamus of the islands of Sunda resemble that
of Africa in every particular? ‘This would be a very remarkable
phenomenon, and would be far from corresponding with our ideas of
the geographical distribution of the great species.

Perhaps this hippopotamus of M. Whalfeldt and of the Society of Ba-
tavia, and the succotyro of Java, represented by Niewhoff +, are nothing

more than one and the same animal a little disfigured by one of these-

authors, and miscalled by the others. However this may be, the clearing
up of this point is the most interesting task that can fall to the lot of
those naturalists who shall have the opportunity of visiting those re-
mote regions.

I pressed my pupil, M. Diard, and my son-in-law, M. Duvaucel, toe
take up this subject; but although these two young naturalists tra-
versed different parts of the islands of Java and Sumatra; and although
they took rhinoceroses of two species, one entirely new, and discovered
anew species of tapir, they did not meet with the succotyro or the
hippopotamus.

Hitherto I have confined myself to works relating to the exterior of
the hippopotamus. [ts anatomical construction was very imperfectly
known before my time.

Nehemias Grew was the first to publish a figure of the osteology of
the head accompanied by some remaiks, in his Museum Regalis Socie+
tatis, printed in 1681.

Antoine de Jussieu gave some more perfect figures of the same part,
with a more detailed description, in the Memoirs of the Academy for
1724. To this he added some details on the teeth, and on the osteo-
logy of the toes of the fore feet.

- In 1764, Daubenton, in the eleventh volume of his Natural History,
published a figure, and a still better description of the head: the oste-

ology of the ire of the fore and hind feet, and that of the second order -

of the carpus, all taken from adult subjects ; and, having occasion in
1712 to trace the origin of some fossil bones, particularly of a fe-
mur of an animal from Ohio, he took away the femur of the feetus
of an hippopotamus which was in the Museum, and described and en-
graved it in order to show that the femur of the fossil animal bore no
resemblance to it.

Nevertheless these three authors: neglected to exam these teeth .

* History of Sumatra, third edition, pp. 116 and 117.

++ Niewhoff’s figure has been copied into the quadrupeds of Schreber, in the general
zoology of Shaw ‘and others. It represents an animal very similar to the hippopo-
tamus with a shaggy tail, and tusks projecting beneath the eyes. The author tells
us its figure resembles that of the ox, and that it is rarely caught.

ON THE BONES OF THE HIPPOPOTAMUS, 375

with sufficient attention, and to describe them with that minuteness of
detail which the nature of the subject demanded. Daubenton went
so far as to find, in those of the mastodons of Ohio and Simorre, an
analdgv with those of the hippopotamus, which most certainly does
not exist. He even gave the title of teeth of the hippopotamus to the
smaller specimens of Ohio. (Description of the King’s Museum in the
Nat. Hist., vol. xii, in 4to. pp. 74—78).

Pallas having obtained from Siberia some teeth similar to those of
Ohio, and wishing to ascertain their real points of resemblance with
those of the hippepotamus, procured from Camper a good drawing of
a jaw tooth, which he had engraved in the Memoirs of the Academy
of Petersburgh for 1777, part ii, pl. viil, fig. 3; with a view of show-
ing how widely it differed from those of the great fossil animals.

Again Buffon, in the justificatory notes of his Epochs of Nature,
printed in 1777 (Suppl. vol. v. plate vi.), published another engraving
of the molar tooth of an hippopotamus, with the same views enter-
tained by Pallas, namely to prove how much those teeth differed from
those of Ohio, when the latter are not worn. True it is that in the
same passage he takes some other teeth of Ohio, which had changed
their shape in the process of mastication, for teeth of the hippopo-
tamus; but this is a peculiar mistake to which I shall hereafter have
occasion to advert. 4

Here is a full statement of all the information I was able to collect
on the osteology of this great quadruped, at the period of the publi-
cation of the first edition of my researches. In fact these documents
afforded ample facilities to enable me to recognize many fossil speci-
mens, such as all the species of teeth, the fragments of the head, &c.
and as there are specimens of these descriptions in the collections, as
well as of the other parts of the body, the osteclogy of which was then
unknown, there was no ground for raising a doubt about the existence
.of the fossil bones of the hippopotamus, as has been done by M. Faujas
de Saint Fond in his Essay on Geology.

Although I felt perfectly convinced of the species of the fossils in
question, nevertheless I considered I should be much better qualified
to place the truth in its proper light if the entire skeleton of the ani-
mal were known; and after various efforts to procure one of an adult
subject, being assured that the issue of my researches upon fossil quad-
rupeds would necessarily require an examination of this subject, I had

recourse to an expedient adopted by Daubeuton on a similar occasion.
He had extracted a single bone from the body of a foetus: I had»the
remainder of the skeleton prepared, but as those parts which had not
become ossified would have become rigid by exposure to the atmos-
phere, and would consequently have lost their real shape, I had the
the whole preserved in liquor. In this way I obtained with almost
perfect exactness, the shapes of all the bones, with the exception of the
head, and from them | composed'the figure of the skeleton ee I
then laid before the public.

The head was too large in proportion, and as the teeth had not all
emerged from their sockets, nor had the sinuses become developed,
its shape was very different from that of the adult. This defect lL

supplied by replacing it by a head drawn from the adult living animal.
r1/2

376 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

All that was necessary for this, was to estimate the degree of reduction
requisite to make it suit my little skeleton, or, what ‘amounted to the
same thing, how many times the length of the head is comprehended
in the entire length of the body of the adult: the external dimensions
given by divers authors, and the stuffed subjects within my reach,
made it easy for me to calculate this proportion, but I did not find
it equal throughout.

According to Zerenghi for instance, the entire body i is 11’ 2”, the
head 2’ 4”, or a little more than a fifth.

According to Columna 13—3, or a little less than a fourth.

The fizure of Columna gives the proportion of the head to the body
as 2 to 7.

According to Daubenton, the body of the fetus was 1’ 3” 7”, the
head 5” 30 or more than a third.

The hippopotamus of Leyden, according to AUamendl was 9/ 4” 8’,
the head 1’ 11”, or a little less than a fourth. Gi

The hippopotamus of the Hague, according to Klockner, was 13’,
the head 2’ 9", or a little less than a fourth.

The figure of the small hippopotamus of Chantilly, gives the pro-
portion of the head to the body as 1 to 4.

According to Gordon, the body of the male is 11’ 4" 9'"', the head
BPS 5 corresponding, nearly, with the dimensions given by Zerenghi :
that of the female 11, the head 2/4”

From these different proportions I considered that, ee deviating
far from the truth, I might give the head about a fourth of the total
length of the body, not comprehending the tail; and it was upon this
scale that I perfected the skeleton which has served as the basis of the
comparisons of my first edition; but I have since had the good fortune
to procure materials more copious and precise.

In 1811, [ observed in the very fine Museum of the late M. Brugmans
at Leyden, the extremities of a middle aged hippopotamus perfectly en-
tire; and, in 1820, my anxious wishes were at length gratified by the
arrival of an entire skeleton of a full grown hippopotamus, which I
had long endeavoured to procure in every direction, and which M.
Delalande, a naturalist in the service of the Museum, succeeded in pro-
curing at very great expense and personal risk, on the banks of a
stream called the Berg-river, forty leagues beyond the city of the Cape.

From this eeeletons unique 1p Europe at the nresent moment, I have
drawn my new figures and rectified my former description.

ARTICLE II.

OSTEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE HIPPOPOTAMUS.

I. The Head.

Though the head of the hippopotamus resembles that of the pig in
the digen of its sutures and the connexion of its bones, yet it does not
fail to present us with a very extraordinary shape, when we come to
consider its general conformation.

Ist.. By the right line of the forehead, from the occipital crest to the
edge of the nose, (a, 6, plate 31, figs. ] and 2).

ON THE BONES GF THE HIPPOPOTAMUS. 377

2nd. By the projection of the orbital vaults, in two ways, namely
above the right line (¢, id.) so as to make the eyes very much raised,
and below the middle line, so as to cause the axes of the orbits to form
a sort of cross with it.

3rd. By the shape of the snout, at first almost cylindrical, (c e,
plate 31, figs. 2 and 3), and then suddenly enlarging into four thick
turgid excrescences, one on each side, to contain the sockets of the
incisores (a, id.) and one more external for that of the canine (4, 7b.) ; an
oblique and deep furrow, (d), separates these turgid excrescences, and
contains the suture, distinguishing the incisor from the maxillary bone.

The root of the snout (f/, plate 31, fig.2,) is flattened and
widened, to cover the anterior part of the orbits. This widening is
formed by the lachrymal bone, and the base of the jugal. The
lachrymal bone (mm, 7b.) is rather singular: on the cheek it forms
an oblique little tongue, enlarging towards the base; its narrow part
bounds the edge of the orbit, where it has a slope, forming in the
- interior of this cavity another little tongue, which is continued by
passing over the posterior aperture of the sub-orbital canal, and ter-
minates there by a swoln sinus with delicate partitions; nevertheless,
the lachrymal duct is very deeply hollowed in the bottom of the orbit.

The temporal fossze are so deep that the skull is moreover some-
what less in size than the middle portions of tiie snout. (See e e, plate $1,
figs.2and3). They leave between them a crest in a right line, and the
frontal angle (2, fig. 2), which separates themin front, is very obtuse.
The frontal is concave between the two orbits.

The bone of the cheek advances very much upon the face, lower
still thamthe lachrymal, with the side of which it articulates, and forms .
a pointed apophysis (d, fig. 2.), which rises behind the orbit, and.
almost terminates its circle. However, there is a small interval be-
tween the summit of the apephysis and the edge of the arch of the
eyebrow of the frontal. It is well known that the quadrumanes, rumi-
nants, and the solipedes, are the only animals which have this interval
filled by the bone.

The frontal, after having formed the arch of the eyebrow, continues
to form a crest, which proceeds obliquely towards the back, distin-
guishing by its projection the temporal fossa from the orbit. This crest
is continued on the parietal and sphenoid bones. ‘The sutures of the
frontals and of the parietals form a cross in young subjects.

The upper occipital advances, in an obtuse angle, between the parie-
tals: There is no interparietal. (

The parietal does not become united to the sphenoid at the bottom
of the temporal fossa, but at an interval of some millimetres.

The palatine bone re-ascends into the orbit, and there advances in
front as far as the lachrymal, by a little tongue. The posterior sphenoid
there rises almost as high, and the anterior there’ occupies a place
above. They are both partly concealed by the descending crest, which
continues on the parietal and on the temporal in the temple, that which
the frontal had begun on the orbit.

The zygomatic arch is straight, as well in the longitudinal sense
(d e, plate 31, fig. 1), as in its horizontal plane, (fg, 2d. figs. 2 and 3);

878 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS;

in this it proceeds outwards as it goes back. Its most prominent part,
(q); is almost cpposite to the articulation of the jaw.

The suture which distinguishes the apophysis of the temporal from
the jugal bone, descends obliquely, backwards from the post orbi-
tar apophysis of the latter, to the articulation of the jaw (see d e,
fig.1, plate 31). As the temporal fossais very deep, the distance be-
tween the skull and the arch (e 4, plate 31, figs. 2,and 3) is somewhat.
greater than the size of the skull, (e e, ib.)

The hole of the ear is exceedingly small, and placed quite behind the
upper edge of the arch. It gives birth to a long meatus, concealed in
the thickness of the bone.

The bones of the nose are very long and narrow: they enlarge at
their base by a little point, which runs outwards between the frontal
and the lachrymal.

The intermaxillary sutures re-ascend obliquely to one fourth of the
length of the bones of the nose.

The suborbitar perforation is placed in the middle of the contracted
part of the muzzle, and is rather large. The external aperture of the
nostrils is vertical and almost round. It is only surrounded by the
nasal and incisive bones.

The lower surface of the skull (plate 31, fig. 3) is remarkable for
the singular enlargement of the muzzle in front, principally formed
by the sockets of the canines, and owing to the two series of grinders
being either parallel,or rather a little apart in front. This latter cir-
eumstance is, I believe, unparalleled in any other living animal.

The palate is very much slanted in front, u, between the incisive
bones. There is a double incisive hole, v v, and the suture sepa-
rating the incisive from the maxillary bone, next forms a strong
point backwards, w, occupying a fourth of the length of the palate.
The maxillary bone displays another great hole, at which the small
canal terminating at the other incisive hole at y, commences. It ap-
pears, in general, that the enormous lips of the hippopotamus required
thick nerves, for the passage of which these holes are perforated. The
palatine bones likewise advance in a sharp point as far as z, opposite
the interval between the fourth and fifth grinder. The posterior slope,
&c. corresponds with the termination of the series of teeth. The
sphenoid occupies but a small place in the pterygoid wing, which is
quite simple and almost entirely of the palatine bone. The pterygoid
bone prolongs the point of the wing into a little cretchet, 2; the bone
of the tympanum ¢ 4, is irregular, angular, not at all prominent, and
contains a cell communicating by a small hole with the real chest,
which is very small; the mastoid apophysis is pointed and short, and
belongs to the occipital. In general, the whole region of the os basi-
laire is small in proportion.

The glenoid process of the temporal is slightly concave, and ex-
tends obliquely from the outside to the inside, and a little from top to
bottom towards the back.

In the orbit, there are two upper orbitar holes, one corresponding
with the sphenoid and pterygoid palatine, a small. optic hole, a spheno-
orbitar hole which also embraces the circle, and an oval hole, which unites

ON THE BONES OF THE HIPPOPOTAMUS, 379

itself to the anterior and posterior so, that, in the skeleton, two-thirds
of the os tympani are surrounded by a vacant space.

The shape of the lower jaw is also very remarkable; its two almost
parellel branches (a 3, fig. 4, plate 31), instead of forming a con-
tracted point at their junction, expand themselves at that point into
a space almost square, on the anterior edge of which, c d, the incisores
are implanted on a right line, while its angles e, project obliquely in
front to sustain the canine teeth.

Viewed on the side, the branch of the jaw is remarkable for the
extremely prominent angle (/, plate 31, fig. 1), in the form of a half
erescent, which it makes below, and which is determined by a large
semicircular slant, g, The poste rior edge of the ascending branch is
remarkably thick.

The condyle forms an irreguiar cylinder, and descends from: the
outside to the imside. The holes for the issue of the nerve are two
or three in number; they are below the first molar, and somewhat |
. forward.

li.—The Teeth.

There is no animal which requires to be more studied at different
ages, in order to acquire a perfect knowledge of its molar teeth, than
the hippopotamus; they change their shape, their number, and their
position. The definite number is six on each side, above and below—
twenty-four in all; and, as in the horse, there are three in front which
are renewed, while the three posterior are not renewed. There is
moreover, as is in the horse, a tooth in front (, plate 31, fig. 3), which
falls without being replaced.

Hence there are four sucking molars, three that replace others,
and three back molars.

The first three sucking grinders and the three that replace the others
have a peculiar shape, being conical and much more simple than that
of the back grinders.

The fourth sucking grinder, on the contrary, resembles the. back
grinders in its complicated shape. It is replaced by a simple grinder
(m, ib.) ; butas at the same time the last back molar, t, emerges from
the jaw, the number of complex grinders always remains the same,
viz. three.

It is a general rule that the sucking grinders of all animals partake
of the complex form cf the back grinders in a greater degree than the
replacing grinders; and the reason for this is plain, viz. that the sucking
grinders might i in some measure fulfil the functions of the back grinders,
which have not as yet entirely emerged.

This shape, to which I have given the name complex, consists more
especially in the hippopotamus in four conical hills, ranged two and
two, so that one pair may be before the other transversely. Each of
these hills is intersected, on the surfaces not contiguous to each other,
by two deep longitudinal furrows; so that the crown of the tooth, when
it begins to be worn, presents the figure cf a double trefoil for each
pair of hills. When detrition has descended as far as the point where
the hills become united, a quadrilobed figure is formed for each pair.

3280 oN THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

When the two pairs are united, we can observe nothing more than «
large curvilinear square occupying the whole crown of the tooth.

The two last grinders of the lower jaw have one simple hill more
than the others, behind the two pairs of furrowed hills, which form
upon the crown, by detrition an oval, placed behind two pairs of
trefoil figures.

The first three sucking grinders have the form of a cone, compressed
at the sides, pointed and almost sharp.

The three replacing grinders succeeding the three last sucking
grinders are of a conical form, less compr essed, marked with two fur-
rows on the external surface, so that detrition gives to their crown a
lobed figure.

Figures 3 and 4 of plate 51 represent the jaws of an hippopotamus al-
mostfull grown. Neither in the upper or lower are we able to discover
more than the vestiges of the socket of the first sucking tooth, if we
may except é, where a part of that molar still adheres to the upper jaw.

‘The points Az, are the two first replacing grinders of the lower
jaw, and J m m those of the upper.

The third lower tooth, k, is the third sucking tooth which has not as
yet fallen, and hke the back grinders it exhibits its trefoil figures:
but the third upper, 7, is a replacing tooth, which has scarcely been
worn, as it hasonly just emerged from the socket, while the first back
molar, oand p, is very much worn in both jaws, and already begins
to exhibit considerable expansion in its trefoils; they are narrower in
the two last molars, as well below, q r, asabove, s ¢; moreover, the
lower, g 7, show us the small fang which distinguishes the two last
‘grinders of the lower from those of the upper jaw.

Such are the appearances in the hippopotamus to the time of its having
changed all its teeth. ‘The observations I have made upon the other
appearances of that animal have been the result of the examination of
seven heads, all of different ages, which admit of our following each
tooth through its several successive stages, from the germ when all its
hills are unimpaired, and covered with enamel, to the period of its being
co mpletely worn down by mastication.

Hence then we are provided with the means of recognizing the
fossil grinders of the hippopotamus, if we should meet ait them, no
matter in what state, or at what age they may have been cast.

The incisores and the canine teeth are still more easily recognized.

The lower incisores are directed outwards, as in the pig: they are
cylindrical, and become somewhat worn at the point ; their radical part,
or that which is contained within the socket, is longitudinally channelled
in its periphery. The two middle ones, v v, (figs. 1 and 4, plate 31),
are much thicker and four times longer, externally, than the laterals 6 6.

This difference is determined by the position of the upper incisores.
They are bent almost vertically downwards, and those on the outside
(a, figs. | and 3) are placed much more backwards than the intermediate
teeth, €, so as not to allow the lower laterals, 5, to advance in front.

The upper intermediate teeth are worn on ‘their internal surface ;
the lateral on their external surface and a little lower: the contrary is
the case with the inferior incisores

ON THE BONES OF THE HIPPOPOTAMUS. 381

The lower canine teeth, 7, are enormous, curved into the are of a
circle, triangular in their profile, channelled on their two anterior sur-
faces, and worn on almost the entire of their posterior surface.

The upper, 5, are much shorter, equally triangular, and mastication
produces an oblique plane, cutting these two anterior surfaces. The
posterior is intersected by a deep longitudinal furrow.

Moreover, the twelve anterior teeth of the hippopotamus are more
easily distinguishable by the peculiar texture of their osseous substance.
It is extremely hard, and, though ever so well polished, we may observe
upon its surface extremely fine and close stria, all concentric with the
section of the tooth. Their enamel is moderately thick.

The hippopotamus has then in all thirty-six teeth: namely, eight
incisores, four canine teeth, and twenty-four grinders; and, counting
the anterior sucking teeth, which are cast without being replaced, it
may be said to have forty.

Ill. The Vertebre.

There are seven cervical vertebre, fifteen dorsal, four lumbar, sever
sacred, and fourteen coccygin ; forty-seven in all.

The atlas (plate 30, figs. 2 and3), and the axis (ib. figs. 4 and 3), have
very common forms in the large animals. The transverse apophyses
of the atlas enlarge towards the back part, so that their anterior
angle is obtuse, and the posterior acute. «The superior crest of the
axis is long and strongly defined ; it rises higher behind. _ Its transverse
apophysis are slight, and terminate ina small tuberosity. Its odontoid
apophyses is inserted in a peculiar ring of the atlas, below the
medullary canal.

What may strike as being peculiarly remarkable is, that the atlas
and the axis, besides the common articulating surfaces, have each two
additional ones, towards the dorsal part.

The transverse apophyses of the next cervical-vertebrx are two-
pronged. ‘The upper lobe is horizontal, oblong, and terminates in a
vertical surface, which goes on increasing in size as far as the seventh.

The lower lobe is almost vertical ; it enlarges very much towards the
back, and goes on increasing to the sixth; but it is completely lost in
the seventh.

The fourth cervical may be seen in plate 30, figs. 6 and 7.

The spinal apophyses are compressed and pointed: their length is
moderate; it increases, however, as far as the seventh.

The body of all these vertebre is transversely oval, a little convex
in front, and concave behind; it is broader than it is long, without
apophyses below, but with a slight crest in the anteriors. On the
whole, these vertebree approximate more closely to those of the pig, in
the shape and details of the arterial apertures, &c.

The dorsal vertebree are furnished with long spinal apophyses, com-
pressed and directed backwards ; they increase as far as the third, and
then diminish gradually to the ninth, after which they become short,
cut into squares, almost equal in height, but always becoming broader
from front to rear. The last spinal vertebree of the back and those of
the loins take a more forward direction.

The surfaces of the articulating apophyses become horizontal as far

882 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS,

as those uniting the tenth to the eleventh ; the latter rise up, and after
these they are all almost vertical. In the dorsal as in the lumbar
vertebre, each anterior vertebree embraces the posterior of the pre-
ceding vertebra, below.. The third dorsal vertebree is represented on
plate 30, figs. 8 and 9. The transverse apophyses of the loins are very
large, very wide, inclining to the front and pointed. The last but one
has its transverse apophysis articulated by a facette with the last.
The latter (plate 30, figs. 10 and 11), has its body depressed, and its
transverse apophysis, which is very large at the base, articulates by
very large facettes with that of the first sacred vertebrae. *

The os sacrum has an elongated shape, narrowing a little towards
the back. The last vertebree alone is distinguished from the preceding
by a slant; the remainder are only marked with holes. All the
spinal apophysis, except the first are united in a slightly elevated crest;
with an expanded edge flattened at the top. The transverse apophyses
beyond the os ilium are also united in a similar crest. The first, or that
which principally joins the os ilium, is much broader than the rest.

The first coccygin vertebrae have moderate transverse apophyses, spi-
nals with slightly elevated crests but stretching longitudinally, and ante-
rior articulators without corresponding posteriors. Beyond the fourth the
spinals disappear ; they have each four tuberosities below. The succeeding
coccygin vertebre are compressed with three tuberosities above, one on
each side and three below. The last have only two above and two below.
The body of all the vertebrze, except the cervical, are almost plane.

There are fifteen ribs; seven of which are real, and eight false : they
are almost as much knobled as those of the rhinoceros, from which, as
well as from those of the elephant, they are distinguished by being
broader and flatter at the part adjoining the vertebree than at their
opposite side. The anterior portion of the sternum is compressed like
a plough share, and advances in an obtuse point beyond the first rib.
The remaining portion is depressed: the component pieces are seven
in number.

IV. The Anterior Extremity. ,

The shoulder blade (plate 30, fig. 1, A, and plate 31, fig. 6), is easily
distinguishable from those of the rhinoceros and the elephant, being
larger than the former and smaller than the latter, besides being quite
differently shaped : its superior edge is almost on a level with the in-
ferior, which is almost rectilinear. ‘The anterior has a curve, convex
towards the centre and afterwards concave, terminating by a very
prominent coracoidal tuberosity; its spine, ac, is more salient
towards the humeral articulation than anywhere else: by means of a
slope it there produces an apophysis or species of acromion in the shape
of a crotchet, a, which advances, as does its base, d, but is-far from
reaching the level of the articulating surface; its edge is very thick
at one half of its length, b; the glenoid cavity (g h, plate 31, figs. 5
and 6), is elliptic, rounded, and broader towards the back, and more
pointed in front.

The general form of this shoulder-blade reminds us a little of that
of the pig, but it approximates more closely to that of the ox, as far as
regards the spine and the articulation, characteristics far more es-
sential on account of the play and fastenings of the muscles.

-

ON THE BONES OF THE HIPPOPOTAMUS. 383

The humerus (plate 30, fig. 1 B, and plate 31, figs. 7, 8, 9, 10), has
its large tuberosity, a, very much elevated, very salient in front, and
dividing itself into two lobes, the posterior of which, @, is the smaller;
the anterior curves forward from the bicepital groove, whichis very deep
and smooth; the smaller, 6, is lower down. ‘The articulated head, c, is
directed very much towards the back, and is oval; the sharp line
stretches obliquely along the whole of the bone; at first it is not at all
salient, but it swells, immediately below the upper third of the bone,
intoa tuberosity, (d e, figs. 7 and 8); the externalcondyle, g, ismore salient
than that of the internal, f: but its crest does not project beyond it
along the bone as it does in the elephant : the articular pulley, A, is ob-
lique from the out to the inside, thicker on the internal side, with a
wide gorge very slightly concave, and a strait still less concave on the
outside. To the rear between the two condyles (¢, fig. 8), is a fossa for
the olecranon, very deep, but not piercing the bone. Neither is there
in the internal condyle any hole for the cubital artery. This humerus
bears a singular resemblance to that of the ox, which is merely shorter
in proportion, and has the grooves of its pulley more marked; that of
the pig has also some relation to it, but is not so large at the base.

The radius, E, (fig. 1, plate 30), and a 3, (fig. 11, plate 31), is thick
and short, somewhat flattened from front torear. Its upper head, ¢ d,
(fig. 12, b), is transversely oblong, larger on the inside, and rather salient
in the centre, e, which only allows it a flexional movement on the humerus.
It very soon adheres by its posterior margin to the inferior margin
of the sigmoid facette of the cubitus. Its anterior surface represents,
though irregularly, a portion of a cylinder : the internal surface is level.
It adheres by the whole exterior margin of this surface, to the anterior
margin of the cubitus.

Its lower extremity (e f, fig. 11), presents two oblique concave
facettes below, g and h, for the two first bones of the carpus, and two
thick tuberosities in front. The external margin of the second facette
becomes united to the anterior or internal margin of the cubital facette.

The cubitus, F, (plate 30, fig. 1), and e d, (plate 31, fig. 11), is com-
pressed ; the olecranon, ¢, is rather prolonged, and its posterior margin
almost sharp : to the rear it is somewhat rounded, and is rather sharp
above. At the extremity, this sharp margin bends inward in the form
of acrotchet. The sigmoidal facette is narrow above; towards the
base it enlarges, and becomes two-pronged, as in most other animals ;
but this latter quality is separated entirely from the other by a deep
fossa, and forms a distinct facette.

The lower facette of the cubitus is small, concave, and becomes uni-
ted to a slight portion of the radius, to form a third oblique pulley for ,
the corresponding bone of the carpus.

The two bones just mentioned form in reality but a single one in
the hippopotamus, for they become identified with each other very soon,
merely leaving between them on the external side a rather deep furrow,
which occupies three quarters of the length of the radius, and on the
internal side a simple aperture towards the upper quarter.

The fore-arm of the ox is very similar to that of the hippopotamus ;
but it is more elongated, and the articulations of the lower extremity
are less oblique.

BS4 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

The carpus of the hippopotamus is in its general form shaped on the
model] of that of the pig, but its bones are less elevated and more
depressed. Those of the first rank have their superior surfaces more
concave from front to rear. ‘The scaphoid, a, (fig. 13, plate 31), has
a posterior tuberosity more salient. ‘The semi-lunar, b, (zb.) has its an-
terior surface rising more obliquely towards the outside, and its superior
externalangle more pointed. The os cuneiforme, d,is less compressed on
its sides. The os pisiforme, e, isalso less compressed ; it has a thick round
projection on its external surface, which gives it a crooked appearance.

In the second rank, a small pointed bone, f, almost similar to the os
pisiforme, serves for a toe and a trapezium. The trapezoid, g,is not
compressed on the sides, like that of the pig, but is broader than it is
high. The facette for the trapezium occupies the whole height of its
external surface. Its superior surface is a slightly convex trapezium.
The large bone, h, has scarcely any anterior surface, it is so much de-
pressed ; and behind its double upper surface it has a tuberosity, or
more properly a long crooked pediculum, which does not exist in
the pig. )

The ridge which separates the two upper facettes in the unciform, ¢,
is less oblique than in the pig; the exterior of the two is less extended
on the outside; and there is, behind, a pediculum, as in the great bone,
which does not exist in the pig.

All these characters of the carpus of the hippopotamus are as —

strongly distinguished from those of the ox as from those of the pig.
Its metacarpus, oaly, can bear comparison with that of the pig, but

all its bones are thicker and shorter. The two extremes, R, /, (fig. 13,

plate 31), are shorter, but thicker than those of the centre, m and n;
the antero-posterior diameter of their upper extremities is more con-
siderable in proportion, and the articular pullies of their inferior
extremities are simple, scarcely discovering behind the vestige of -a
middle edge. The phalanges have the common articulations. The
second are shorter by one half than the first; and the third are the
smallest of the set, and are of a semicircular form.

V. The posterior Extremity.

The pelvis of the hippopotamus, G, (fig. 1, plate 30, and fig. 14,
plate 31), is easily distinguished from those of the elephant and the
rhinoceros, as it is much smaller in the direction of the ilia, and as the
large iléal wings approach nearer to a common plane than the necks of
the ossa illum: the ischia and the pubis are more elongated, and the
latter less salient, so that the strait is very obliqne, and the small
pelvis very much elongated. Here, again, it is the ox which approaches

the nearest to it in these particulars; but, in the hippopotamus, the

smaller pelvis and the ovalar holes especially are more elongated. The
shape too of the widened part of the ossa ilium is also very different ;
their two wings are almost equally exuberant; the external is larger
and more rounded than the other, which is more pointed. The contrary
is the case in the ox and in the camel. The anterior margin which unites
them forms the convex are of a circle; in the ox it is shaped thus, m.
The camel has it in common with the hippopotamus, but without any
direct resemblance in other respects. For instance, the tuberosity of

ON THE BONES OF THE HIPPOPOTAMUS. 385

its ischium is transverse, and in a right line with its corresponding one.
Tn the ox, they form together an angle of 45 degrees; in the hippopo-
tamus they are almost parallel. !

The os sacrum, a 6 (ib.), is very large; the external part of the os
ilium, ¢ d,is very much widened, and almost in the same plane. The part
situated towards the back of, or rather above, the os sacrum rises gently.
The neck of the bone, e e, is broad and short, and the bone itself is more
broad than long; its external edge is as long as the internal ; its posterior
surface is concave ; what we can see of the anterior, without displacing
the os sacrum, is plane. The pubes, f s, are not strongly defined, so
that the cavity of the pelvis is small. The antero-posterior diameter,
g h, is nevertheless longer by a third than the transverse, 7k. The
perspective renders it difficult to judge of this proportion.

The shape of the anterior strait is oblique towards the back part.
The posterior part of the ischium, m m, is very much enlarged.

The femur, K K (plate du, fig. 1, and plate 31, figs. 15, 16, and 17),
is finely and straightly shaped. Its shaft is almost even from top to
bottom, regularly cylindrical in front, with two sharp lines, an internal
and a posterior, slightly marked. Its great trochanter, a, compressed at
the sides, does not surpass the height of its head, b; the smaller, ¢, is
- moderate ; they form a junction by an oblique salient rib, in front of
which is a deep and rounded fossa. There is no third, as in the
rhinoceros, the tapir, and the horse. The lower extremity is very
thick. The internal condyle is larger by one third than the other.
They are both rather prominent behind. The pulley of the rotula, d,
is not very deep, its edges are rather blunt. The internal rises higher
than the external.

It does not resemble any but the femora of the great rumimants ; but
its upper head is much more detached, more spherical, and the inferior
is larger, particularly at tle back part.

These differences will be of use in enabling us to distinguish it from
the femur of the ox: that of the giraffe, which might more easily mis-
lead us, as being of the same size, besides having its upper head closer to
the body, has moreover its condyles smaller, and the internal edge of
the pulley of the retula much more elevated and more salient: the
femur of the pig bears a great resemblance to it in its upper part,
but much less in its lower; and, besides, its dimensions do not admit
of the possibility of a mistake.

The tibia, LL, (plate 30, fig. 1, and plate 31, figs. 18 and 19), is
shorter and thicker than that of any known animal, particularly at the ex-
tremities ; it is triangular throughout; however, its anterior edge, a b,
which is very prominent in the two thirds of the upper part, and slanted
at the top, has a defection at the base towards the internai malleolus, b.

The external malleolus is formed, as in the pig and in the ruminants,
by apeculiar little bone, c, which articulates with the fibula, the tibia,the
astragalus, and a particular facette of the calcaneum. The superior
head has a very curious shape, being rounded into a semicircle on the
internal side, deeply sloped towards the back and on the front of the
external side. ‘The external condyle is almost square; the internal is
larger and triangular ; the anterior edge forms, in front of the slope on
the external side, a large rounded tuberosity. The surface of the astra-

3

386 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACHYDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

galus, e (fig. 19), is larger on the internal side, where the malleolus
forms an acute angle.

It resembles the tibia of the ox more than that of any other animal,
but the latter is more elongated. The projection of the anterior edge
does not descend so low in the latter, and is not so flattened and so
slanted at the top. That of the pig is also more elongated, and the
slopes of its upper extremity are less marked.

The fibula, d (fig. 18), is very rough and very much separated from
the tibia throughout, except at the two extremities. The malleolar
little bone becomes instantly united to the imferior extremity.

It is also after the model of that of the pig that the tarsus of the
hippopotamus is principally constructed.

The astragalus, A (plate 31, fig. 20), is larger in proportion ; as in the
ruminants and in the pig, its lower pully is divided into two gorges,
a b, separated bya blunt edge; but these two gorges are almost equaland
very slightly concave; the external, a, answers to the cuboid ; the inter-
nal, b, to the scaphoid. The tibial pulley, c, isstrongly defined; on the
posterior surface there is a large facette for the articulation with the
calcaneum, and two others in the external surface. This surface shews,
moreover, another for the articulation with the malleolar extremity of
the fibula, ¢ (fig. 18), and there is one almost similar on the internal
surface, for the internal tibial malleolus.

The calcaneum (plate 31, fig. 20, B), has the same surfaces and
facettes as that of the pig; but its body is thicker, shorter, and less
compressed. Its great astragalian surface is likewise broader. These
characters also serve to distinguish it from that of the ox.

The cuboid (ib. C), corresponds in shape with the two preceding ; the
surface towards the caleaneum is a little narrower than that towards
the astragalus, and its anterior surface, ¢, is somewhat in the form of a
carpenter's square. The inferior presents two facettes for the two external
bones of the metatarsus. Of these the external is very narrow, and above
it on the external surface of the bone there isanother. The scaphoid (ib.
D) is separated from the cuboid as it is in the camel and the pig; the
posterior tuberosity does not rise as in the latter. Its inferior surface
presents three facettes, two of which are for the two cuneiforme bones,
E and F, which answer to the two external bones of the metatarsus,
and the third is for a small supernumerary bone, partaking at once of
the first cuneiforme and of the toe. The cuneiforme of the internal side
is three times smaller than the other. What has been said of the toes
ef the fore feet is also applicable to those of the hind feet. ‘The bones
of the metatarsus and the phalanges bear the same resemblances and
the same differences to the analogous bones of the pig.

From this description it results, as may have been seen, that the
hippopotamus approximates to the pig and the ox in the structure of
its skeleton, while, at the same time, each bone furnishes such distinct
characters as must at once prevent its being confounded with that of
any other animal.

All that now remains for me is, to give the dimensions of the differ- —
ent parts of my skeleton, in order to convey a more correct idea of its
proportions.

ON THE BONES OF THE HIPPOPOTAMUS.

387

Dimensions of the Skeleton of an Hippopotamus, measuring, when

alive, eleven feet in length.

HEAD.
From the summit of the occipital crest to the edge of the ex-
terior aperture of the nostrils: upper part...... Sono dad

From the superior edge of one orbit to the other, backwards. .

From the most prominent part of one zygomatic arch to the
OSNEr Hi 7a ata fo/s ee se coat te eee era y

Size of the occipital crest between Gewuches! «Aut.

Size of the head taken above, opposite the suborbital holes. .

Size of the head taken above, from the alveolus of one canine
tothe other. ; 5 222. sees ES cit MONS PLAN R a aTEIOW i eal 9S

Same dimension taken below, from the most exterior part of
the tuberosity bearing the two incisors on one side, to
that of the opposite side A ape

Height of. the head, taken opposite ‘the suborbital hole, from
the puveolan- edges sige. i...

Distance from the posterior ‘extremity “of” the zygomatic
apophyses of the bone of the cheek, to the edge of the
suborbitall holossem cae. (ae ti bee io: ae af air tet se sa apceaa dla

From the same extremity to the middle part of the occipital
ASSL ere coe Ae ley Dieic jE OMOEA gu OME Ge Ge BONG ager eR eel arte Says Bee

Antero- -posterior diameter of the orbits . oe

Depth of the zygomatic fossa, taken from the internal surface
of that part of the arch which is most remote from the skull,
1G) RCE) ai) os Re Be fe ae aT) RE OE ce creas Si ea

Height of the head, taken from the superior edge of the occi-
pital hole, to the middle of the crest of the same name....

Size of the head in the same place, taken frem one inferior
anele alvie occipitaljerest to the others. )787. 4.5," 000

Height of the occipital hole.........

Size of the same hole .. Alene eteieielad eae

Length of the alveolar edze of the grinders Nagi

Distance from the anterior extremity of the alveolar edges ‘of
the grinders to the alveolus of the canine teeth..........

From the same place to the alveolus of the middle incisor ..

From the occipital hole to the posterior ee of the palatine
Ve nice = Pic Pe ane a, ga cn MM Me ta ae ec

Height a the aperture ‘of the back nostrils | Megs SRR Nae a 3

Breadth . shee aa ce es arg bite ewe,

LOWER JAW.
Size of the jaw, taken from the external alveolar edge of one

canine to the other Wen ei) au ke
Size of the alveolar edge of saitel TIGISONS 40) nye cea ee ane IOE, WEN
Distance from one condyle to the other, taken from the external
part of, cach: cond yleye Mer Vico ane eens nce, yeaah ce

Distance from one coronoid apophysis to the other..........
Interval between the coronoid apophysis and the condyle on
Rhie came side’ 02 slemccaie ewes es ere aed

-

888 ON THE FOSSIL BONES OF PACH YDERMATOUS QUADRUPEDS.

Height of the branches of the jaw, taken from the angle to

the summit of the condyle..... SE ee ss SR
Length of the jaw, from the upper anterior edge of the alveolus
ef one canine to the most remote part of the branch on the

same side ..... See Ge
Length of the alveolar edge of the erinders: ~ ake, eee ee
Distance of the lower angles

THE SPINE.

Leneth of the cervical part, without comprehending the inter-

vertebral car tila ses ase ete:
Length of the dorsal part, without comprehending the inter-

vertebral cartilages pat As SME Rete UGR LS ig sa ga
Length of the lumbar part, ditto | Se oa RE RS ous sae
Leneth bf the os sacrum 360) an al ee
Length Of the tail: bone .2 oe ee a ee eel cere
Total length of the spine and-of the head ................
Length of the atlas ...... PUES OD RON REESE Re
Greatest breadth i. Bote eek a ee a

Length of the axis, comprehending its odontoid Gael
Breadth va LOSS. ee
Height of the first spinal apophysis of the back .........
Height of the third, which is the longest RSET Ara a3 A

Heicht ofthe last is>53 tir 2 ORY Cee Ree 08 esol Dain es
Breadth of the last lumbar, from the extremity of one trans-

verse apophysis to the other
ANTERIOR EXTREMITY.
Lengih of the shoulder-blade, from the superior anterior border
of the cotyloid cavity to the superior anterior angle ......
From the posterior border of this cavity to the superior pos-
Perior anplelss Sse ee. ee en ee eee
Length of the border comprehended between the two superior
angles as eee ee ete : ae
Sit of the nee 1 cep aaa
Length of the spine, from the edge of the shee dec: Tele io as
point SOSA MOM Biss DCIS OO SIRE Sas.

Elevation of the spine Doe AR YS ORI 4g,
Length of the cotyloid cay ‘ity ARs ORES SiN RRC os. 53
Breadth, 0 Ee ee
Elevation of the coronoid apophysis above the edge of the

CAVAGY Geils. Stee oa cc Ve shed a ce oN Ue cerieyis Oa EA ehy, vce ene
Length of the humerus, from the summit of the great tube-

rosity to the base of the external condyle ............
Antero-posterior diameter of its upper head, comprehending

the, tuberosity (2002 0 Fe es 0 eee
Transverse diameter) {80.00 0G, ea a
Diameter of the lower head, from one condyle to the other . -
Transverse breadth of the articular pulley................

_ Antero-posterior diameter of the narrowest part of this pulley
Antero-posterior diameter of the segment of the a form-
ing the arthrodial facette of its upper head. .

0,340

0,575
0,280
0,420

0,478

1,050

0,370
0,412
0,480
3,074