kind of double pyramid; but, in the African it is nearly rounded. In the Indian the forehead is concave, and in the African it is rather convex. Several other differences exist, not necessary to be here particularised, which seem to be fully sufficient to mark a difference of species.

A cursory view is sufficient to enable us to determine that the ordinary fossil teeth of elephants are not of the African species, and it may be further said, that the greater number of these teeth bear a close resemblance to the EastIndian species, showing, on their masticating surface, bands of an equal, thickness through their whole length, and rudely crenulated. So great, indeed, is the resemblance, that Pallas, and most other writers, have considered the fossil elephant as being of the same species with the Asiatic.

M. Cuvier, anxious to discover the degree of accordance of the fossil elephant's skeleton with that of the living species, compared the fossil skull, found in Siberia by Messerschmidt, with those of the African and Asiatic elephants. The result of his comparison was, that in the fossil species the alveoli of the tusks are much longer; the zygomatic arch is of a different figure; the postorbital apophysis of the frontal bone is longer, more pointed, and more crooked; and the tubercle of the os lachrymalis is considerably larger, and more projecting. To these peculiarities of the fossil skull, M. Cuvier thinks, may be added the parallelism of the molares.

Comparing together the bones of the Asiatic and of the African elephant, he was able to discover some differences between them, as well as between those and some of the fossil bones which he possessed. These latter he found, in general, approached nearest to those of the Asiatic elphant. He concludes with supposing that the fossil remains are of a species differing more widely from the Asiatic elephant than the horse does from the ass, and therefore does not think it impossible but that it might have existed in a climate that would have destroyed the elephant of India.

It may, therefore, be assumed as certain, from the observations of M. Cuvier, that at least one species of elephants has existed, of which none are now known living; and, should the difference of structure which has been pointed out, in some of the fossil teeth, be admitted as sufficient

to designate a difference of species, it may be then said, that there exist the fossil remains of, at least, two species of elephants, which were different from those with which we are acquainted.

From the preceding observations it appears, then, that the fossil elephantine remains, notwithstanding their resemblance in some respects to the bones of the Asiatic elephant, have belonged to one or more species, different from those which are now known. This circumstance agrees with the facts of the fossil remains of the tapirs and rhinoceros, which appear to have differed materially from the living animals of the same genera. The remains of elephants obtained from Essex, Middlesex, Kent, and other parts of England, confirm the observation of Cuvier, that these remains are generally found in the looser and more superficial parts of the earth, and most frequently in the alluvia which fill the bottoms of the vallies, or which border the beds of rivers. They are generally found mingled with the other bones of quadrupeds of known genera, such as those of the rhinoceros, ox, horse, &c. and frequently, also, with the remains of marine animals.

FOSSIL REMAINS OF THE MASTODON.

We now come to the examination of one of the most stupendous animals known, either in a recent or a fossil state; and which, whether we contemplate its original mode of existence, or the period at which it lived, cannot but fill our minds with astonishment.

The first traces of this animal are sketched in a letter from Dr. Mather, of Boston, to Dr. Woodward, in 1712, and are transcribed from a work in manuscript, entitled Biblia Americana. In this work, teeth and bones of prodigious size, supposed to be human, are said to have been found in Albany, in New England. About the year 1740, numerous similar bones were found in Kentucky, on the Ohio, and dispersed among the European virtuosi.

Many bones of this animal were found, in 1799, in the State of New York, in a large plain, bounded on every side by immense mountains, in the vicinity of Newburgh, situated on the Hudson, or North River. These remains are also found on the side of the three great chains of

mountains, the Alleganies, the North Mountains, and the Blue Mountains; in the anterior parts of Pennsylvania and Carolina; and in new Jersey, a few miles from Philadelphia.

From a careful attendance to every circumstance, M. Cuvier conceives we have a right to conclude, that this great mastodon, or animal of the Ohio, did not surpass the elephant in height, but was a little longer in proportion; its limbs rather thicker; and its belly smaller. It seems to have very much resembled the elephant in its tusks, and, indeed, in the whole of its osteology; and it also appears to have had a trunk. But, notwithstanding its resemblance to the elephant, in so many particulars, the form and structure of the grinders are sufficiently different from those of the elephant, to demand its being placed in a distinct genus. From the later discoveries respecting this animal, M. Cuvier is also inclined to suppose that its food must have been similar to that of the hippopotamus and the boar, but preferring the roots and fleshy parts of vegetables; in the search of which species of food it would, of course, be led to such soft and marshy spots as it ap~ pears to have inhabited. It does not, however, appear to have been at all formed for swimming, or for living much in the waters, like the hippopotamus, but rather seems to have been entirely a terrestrial animal.

FOSSIL REMAINS OF THE RHINOCEROS.

THERE appear to be three living species of rhinoceros: 1. That of India, a unicorn, with a rugose coat, and with incisors, separated, by a space, from the grinders. 2. That of the Cape, a bicorn, the skin without ruge, and having twenty-eight grinders, and no incisors. 3. That of Sumatra, a bicorn, the skin but slightly rugose, thus far resembling that of the Cape, but having incisive teeth, like that of India.

The fossil remains of the rhinoceros have been generally found in the same countries where the remains of elephants have been found; but they do not appear to have so generally excited attention; and, perhaps, but few of those who discovered them were able to determine to what animal they belonged. Thus a tooth of this animal is described