is finally worn off and the teeth rendered useless; but in graminivorous animals the veins of enamel always present the same figure, only that in youth they are regularly protuberant, and in age regularly worn down by a side-motion of the under jaw, which all of them have. The jaw of the Mammoth was incapable of this motion, as is very evident from the condyloid process, which is finished with an oblong head inserted into a transverse groove; and from the teeth, which are worn, not horizontally, but the lower front ones on the inside, the upper front ones on the outside; the lower back ones on the outside in part, and the upper back ones on the inside in part; in such a manner that they fit into each other like the teeth of two saws, and when shut are immoveable; and hence were certainly incapable of masticating, like graminivorous animals, either grass or leaves. These teeth were supposed by some writers, Buffon, Croghan and Collinson among others, to have been the teeth of the hippopotamus, deposited in these places, together with the remains of elephants, in the general deluge; but they are very different from those of the hippopotamus, the largest of which have only three obtuse points composing the surface, arranged triangularly; whereas the smallest teeth in this animal have three rows of double points arranged parallel to each other, and the largest ones four and five in the same manner.

Although a simple comparison between the teeth of this animal and the elephant be sufficient to prove that the former is as certainly of a carnivorous as the latter of a graminivorous nature, yet the anatomist in examining further, will find complete satisfaction, from the internal structure of the jaw, as well as the position and growth of the teeth. I shall only observe here, that in the jaw of this animal, like those of all others of a carnivorous nature, the roots or fangs are inserted into the mass of bone, which not only surrounds the roots, but divides one tooth from the other; whereas in the elephant the grinders occupy one large and uniform cavity, from which they are gradually protruded as they are required for the purpose of grinding. To those who wish to study this subject more profoundly, it will be well to read, in the Philosophical Transactions for 1799, two learned papers by Mr. Corse and Mr. Home.

Between the temporal bone of this animal and that of the elephant there is a considerable difference in every part; I shall only observe, that where the socket of the eye in the elephant appears scooped out of the anterior projection of the temporal bone, in this animal there is not the least appearance of such an orbit, but instead thereof, a great mass of bone.

To those who have not seen the originals, words are inadequate to convey a correct idea of the difference in form between the jaw of this animal and that of the elephant. The under jaw of the elephant terminates in a point, which in its direction corresponds with the tusks; the same part in this animal is composed of a large projection of a foliated appearance like the leaf of the mallard. And although the lip of the elephant is large and powerful, in this there appears the origin of one infinitely more so; perhaps a long and powerful assistant to the proboscis which it probably had. There is no positive proof that it had a proboscis, but from the shortness of the neck and magnitude of the tusks, it is reasonable to suppose that it was furnished with some such contrivance; that part in which it must have originated is deficient in both skeletons; and although I have met with several accounts of the distance between the orbits of the eyes in fragments of heads, they were never accompanied with any mention of such place of insertion for a proboscis.

The general form of the under jaw of this animal is made up of three distinct angles; one horizontal, on which the jaw rests (when placed on a table), from the front to the back, where a small corner appears cut off, whence it rises perpendicularly to the condyle. The same view of the elephant’s jaw exhibits very nearly a regular portion of a circle without any angles. The arms of this animal’s jaw (composed of the condyloid and coronoid processes and their bases), are short as well as flat, adapted to the peculiar form of the upper jaw, which I shall proceed to describe; whereas those of the elephant are comparatively thick, and generally as long as, and frequently longer than, the body of the jaw itself: This length is adapted to the great elevation of the cavity for the condyloid process, taking the level of the teeth as a base from which to measure. The angle from the teeth to the condyles of the neck in the elephant is at least forty-five degrees, and sometimes more; but in the Mammoth the same angle does not exceed ten or fifteen degrees; hence the comparative disproportion of their jaws with respect to length and height.

In the back of the elephant’s head there is a very deep cavity for the reception of muscles from the spines of the back to support the head; which cavity commences immediately from the condyle of the neck: The back of this animal’s head presents a very different outline, for there is scarcely any appearance of a cavity; and the whole of the back part of the head is angular, in contradistinction to that of the elephant, which is composed of two lobes receding forwards from the condyle of the neck. I have been here particular, as in this respect the two animals are vastly different, and it may lead to curious speculations concerning the structure of the unknown parts and the habits of the animal.

The hips were somewhat broken, but the parts uninjured were sufficient to shew a very different form from those of the elephant, which are high in comparison with their breadth; and consequently the rump of this animal was even more depressed than the elephant’s, in the manner of the American bison or buffaloe. In the elephant the angles from the ossæ tabulæ to the lateral processes of the ilium, are very great; whereas in the Mammoth they are almost on a straight line.

From all the drawings of elephants, and from such of their real ribs as I have seen, I have observed one universal character; towards their junction with the cartilage they are broad and more or less bent sidewise in an undulating form; whereas those of the Mammoth are very small in the same place, and in form without any lateral bend.

In the Mammoth the spinus processes are much longer and thicker, in proportion with the rest of the animal, than they are in the elephant, whose head is drawn up close to them by the ligaments attached to the deep cavity in the back of the head before-mentioned; in the Mammoth this cavity being situated higher from the condyle of the neck and attached to much longer spines, must act with an advantage proportioned to the magnitude of the head and the weight of the tusks or defenses. Besides, these spines are so long, and the form of the ribs such, that unless we suppose them covered with a superfluous quantity of flesh, the back of the animal could not have been round like that of the elephant, but sharp like that of a hog.

As the inhabitant of a cold climate, it is probable the Mammoth was clothed with hair or wool, which in most situations was quickly liable to decay. The only instance of hair being found with the remains of this animal, occurred in a morass belonging to Mr. A. Colden, in the neighbourhood where this skeleton was found. The hair was coarse, long and brown, a large mass of it together, and so rotten that, after a few days exposure to the air, it fell into a powder.

The skeleton of the Mammoth^[3], merely as a skeleton, is certainly entitled to some attention; as the skeleton of a very large and non-descript animal it