having conceived an idea that all the Siberian and some of the American bones belonged unquestionably to elephants, render their observations almost unintelligible, from the confident use of the term elephant in cases where it was at least doubtful, especially as it is now evident, that the same animal was native in the north of both countries; with one probable difference, that the bones of the American animal are comparatively thicker than the Siberian; and with this striking difference between them both and the elephant, that the thigh-bones of the latter are round as well as slender, whereas those of the Mammoth are much flattened, so as to stand obliquely in the animal. After reciting the account given by Mr. Fabry, who states the place and manner in which Mr. le Baron de Longueuil, Mr. de Bienville, and Mr. de Lignery (lieutenant in Canada), found some of these bones and teeth on the Ohio in 1740, he proceeds; “Mr. du Hamel, of the Royal Academy of Sciences, informs us that Mr. de Longueuil had likewise brought, in 1740, some very large grinders found in Canada, and perhaps with the tusk and femur which I shall mention. These teeth have no characters in common with those of the elephant, but greatly resemble the teeth of the hippopotamus, so that there is reason to believe they may be part of that animal; for it can never be supposed that these teeth could have been taken from the same head with the tusks, or that it could have made part of the same skeleton with the femur above-mentioned: In supposing this, it would be necessary to suppose an UNKNOWN ANIMAL, which had tusks similar to those of the elephant, and grinders resembling those of the hippopotamus. (Voyez les Memoires de l’Academie Royale des Sciences, Année 1762).”

Here M. de Buffon, however unwillingly, has drawn a true picture of the Mammoth, with some little variation, inasmuch as the tusks do resemble those of the elephant, except in having a greater curve and spiral twist, and as the teeth do resemble those of the hippopotamus, except that in the latter there are never more than three prongs, or blunt-pointed protuberances, on the grinding surface; whereas in this animal the large teeth have five and six, and the small teeth three and four prongs, very differently arranged from those of the former.

The elephant, which is a graminivorous animal, is armed with tusks, more properly called by the French defences; but to me it appears nothing inconsistent with the nature of a carnivorous animal that it should be furnished with a similar weapon of offence and defence, and indeed from their form somewhat better calculated to answer those objects; therefore the number of instances in which these tusks and those carnivorous teeth were found with bones resembling the bones of the elephant, though larger, should have been taken as the strongest presumption that they were the fragments of one animal, which, from its fossil remains (accompanied with the most terrific and fabulous accounts), has been distinguished, both in Russia and America, by the name of Mammoth.

Mr. Collinson, Member of the Royal Society, in a letter on this subject to M. Buffon^[2], after describing the situation of the salt lick on the Ohio, where an amazing number of bones of the elephant, as he imagined them to be, were found, together with teeth totally unlike those of the elephant, concludes thus: “But the large teeth which I send you, Sir, were found with those tusks or defences; others yet larger than these shew, nay demonstrate, that they did not belong to elephants. How shall we reconcile this paradox? May we not suppose that there existed formerly a large animal with the tusks of the elephant and the grinders of the hippopotamus? For these large grinders are very different from those of the elephant. Mr. Croghan thinks, from the great number of this kind of teeth, that is, the tusks and grinders which he saw in that place, that there had been at least thirty of these animals; yet the elephant never was known in America, and probably could not have been carried there from Asia: the impossibility that they could have lived there, owing to the severity of the winters, and where, notwithstanding such a quantity of their bones is found, is a paradox which we leave to your eminent wisdom to solve.” This determination M. Buffon gives us in the following terms, although in direct contradiction to those passages in which he labours to prove that the bones found in Siberia and America were bones of the elephant: “Thus every thing leads us to believe that this ancient species, which must be regarded as the first and largest of terrestrial animals, has not existed since the earliest times, and is totally unknown to us; for an animal whose species was larger than that of the elephant, could hide itself in no part of the earth so as to remain unknown; besides, it is evident from the form of these teeth alone, from their enamel and the disposition of their roots, that they bear no resemblance to the cachelots, or other cetaceous animals, and that they really belonged to a terrestrial animal whose species approached that of the hippopotamus more than any other.”

The world is now in possession of two undisputed skeletons of this animal, found in such situations as leave no room for conjecture; each skeleton being dug up in a separate place, without any intermixture of foreign bones, and each bone exactly adapted to its corresponding points of articulation. One of these skeletons is erected as a permanent establishment at the Museum, Philadelphia; the other I have brought with me, with an intention to travel through Europe, beginning with the metropolis of England.

I shall here give a short account of the place and manner of finding these.

In the spring of 1801, having heard that in the fall of 1799 many bones of this animal had been found in the state of New York, in the vicinity of Newburgh, which is situated on the Hudson or North River, about sixty-seven miles from the capital, my father, C. W. Peale, immediately proceeded to the spot, and through the politeness of Dr. Graham, who lived in the neighbourhood, and had been present when most of the bones were dug up, received every information with respect to what had been done, and the most probable means of future success. The bones that had been found were then in the possession of the farmer who owned the land, heaped together on the floor of his garret, where they were occasionally visited by the curious.

These my father was fortunate to make a purchase of, together with the right of digging up the remainder; and immediately packing them up, sent them on to Philadelphia: They consisted of all the neck, most of the vertebræ of the back, and some of the tail; most of the ribs, in greater part broken; both scapulæ; both humeri, with the radii and ulnæ; one femur; a tibia of one leg, and a fibula of the other; some large fragments of the head; many of the fore and hind feet bones; the pelvis somewhat broken; and a large fragment, five feet long, of the left tusk, about mid way. He therefore was in want of