in February, 1858. At that time I had not read Dr. Falconer's paper, yet from the remarkable appearance of the tooth, the conclusion that it was a distinct species of elephant, closely allied to the Indian type, forced itself on me. This opinion was confirmed by Professor Owen, and after the name of Elephas Texianus had been given to the species, the specimen was deposited in the British Museum, and now forms one of the most conspicuous objects in the gallery devoted to Proboscidea. Professor Owen, in September, 1858, thought fit to adopt the name of E. Texianus for the species, in his eloquent address to the British Association (and also in the second edition of 'Palæontology,' p. 395). From a comparison of this tooth with that already possessed by the Museum from the same locality, described by Dr. Carpenter, I think decidedly that the remains in the Museum are identical with E. primigenius, while the tooth discovered by Mr. Bollaert appears to beloncr to the distinct species of E. Texianus vel Columbi. This is the only specimen which I have seen of this type, as Dr. Falconer has not stated where the specimens are on which he described his species. He appends as a doubtful synonym, E. Jacksoni?, Silliman's Journal, 1838, vol. xxxiv. page 363;" but after examination of the very bad drawings contained in that page, I cannot make any distinction between them and E. primigenius. The tooth of E. Texianus (m. 6, lower jaw) has enamel-folds much wider and much more waved and undulated than that of the E. Jacksoni. The canals of cement are consequently of much greater width, and the whole aspect of the tooth is much more like E. Indicus.
As the British Association, in their Rules for Zoological Nomenclature, have authoritatively sanctioned the principle that names not clearly defined, and likely to propagate important errors, may be changed, and as the name of E. Columbi lays itself open to the grave charge that it is not clear whether it is named in honour of Columbus, or because it is found in Colombia (Venezuela y Nueva Granada), I trust that this name will not be accepted. That of E. Texianus, founded upon a yet unimpeached geographical distinction, if it has not the advantage of published priority, yet gives a more lucid idea of the nature of the species which it indicates.
The figure by Mr. Mackie gives a better idea of its appearance than any mere verbal description. I however define it as Elephas Texianus, dentium molarium (m. 6), colliculi undulati, magis remoti quam in E. Indico. Its association with E. Indicus and Armeniacus, by Dr. Falconer, seems warranted by its legitimate affinities.
The greater width between the enamel-folds may indicate a more sapid and juicy diet than that of the larch-eating elephants of Eschscholtz Bay. The nutritious prairie-grass of Texas did not require such formidable apparatus for its comminution as was possessed by the Siberian mammoths. The indication of this species, therefore, illustrates the remarkable special adaptation of animals to external and climatal conditions, and may not be altogether irrelevant to the questions discussed by the physio-philosophers of the present day, with regard to the origin of species.
