ing these questions in the affirmative than the negative, but they must be determined by ascertaining the facts, in order to know the exact boundaries of the range of E. indicus.[1]
If, as we have reason to believe is the case, the Elephant of Southern India agrees with that of Bengal, then the phenomenon that the Ceylonese animal belongs to another species, and that species the Sumatran, is certainly very remarkable. The Fauna of Ceylon shows, it is true, in some respects, differences from that of Southern India; one of the most noticeable of which is, that not one of the Monkeys living upon this island is identical with those of India. Nevertheless the Fauna of Ceylon agrees much better with that of India than with that of Sumatra, where not only entirely different species, but even other forms of Monkeys occur (e.g. the Orangoutang, several Gibbons, amongst which is the abnormal Hylobates syndactylus, the Galeopithecus, &c.) and which island besides produces, to mention some of the larger species, a Rhinoceros, the Indian Tapir, a very different species of Bos and of Moschus, an Antelope, the Argus, Polyplectron, several very peculiar species of Hornbill, (e.g. Buceros bicornis, and B. galeatus), and many other species and genera, which are not met with in Ceylon. It would be, however, anticipating the progress of science, when, as now, so small a quantity of incomplete materials are before us, to make comparisons between the Faunas of these countries, and it would be still more precipitate to attempt to draw general conclusions therefrom.[2]
If we take into consideration at once the size of the laminæ of
- ↑ The works of Naturalists and travellers throw no light upon this subject. Corse (PhiL Trans. 1799, p. 245) it is true, tells us that the Bengalese distinguish three races of Elephants—Mooknah, Dauntelah and Komarea; but the distinctions which he gives of these races, seem to refer exclusively to the lesser or greater size and the form of the tusks. But we know how much the tusks of this animal vary according to the sex and the individual, and that these teeth sometimes, even in old females, acquire a considerable size.
- ↑ I think the attention of Naturalists ought to be turned also to the Elephants of the different parts of Africa. We meet, among the skulls from this Continent, with some which, as regards the extraordinary shortness of the tusk-jaw-bones, are proportionately shorter and much broader than is generally the case. Such a skull is figured by Cuvier, (Oss. Foss. I. pl. 4, fig. 2), whereas on the same plate, (fig. 10) the usual form of the skull of the African Elephant is represented. That this difference is not sexual I have repeatedly observed: one might therefore sup- pose that the individual, the skull of which has such a remarkably contracted form, belongs to another variety or species. All the South African Elephants, that I have seen, belong to the ordinary form. I do not know the locality of the short skull. It would be very desirable to compare the Elephants from different parts of Africa, in order to know with certainty whether they are all identical, or show local differ- ences. The latter is not impossible, since most animals from the two chief divisions of Africa differ specifically from one another, or at least show differences in size, &c, as, for example, is the case with the Ostrich of Algeria and that of South Africa. In every case it is remarkable, that the area of Asia tenanted by the Elephant is ten times smaller than Africa, and that this area embraces two species, whilst the African Elephant is spread over the whole Continent—that is, over an area ten times as great as that of the two Asiatic species together.
