Part 30

The existence of fat or adipocire in the shaft of one of the bones mentioned by Archdeacon Maunsell, and which I saw in his possession, is a thing for which it is extremely difficult to account, as it occurred but in one solitary instance, and it did not appear that this bone was at all differently circumstanced from the rest. Those which I had an opportunity of examining, by boring holes in them, were hollow, and contained, for the most part, only a small quantity of black animal earth.

Mr Stokes found, in a rib of this animal,

Animal matter, 42.87 Phosphates with some Fluates, 43.45 Carb., Lime 9.14 Oxides, 1.02 Silica, 1.14 Water and loss, 2.38 ------ 100.00

Dr Apjohn of Dublin made the following observations with regard to the animal matter in the bones:

‘The bone was subjected for two days to the action of dilute muriatic acid. When examined at the end of this period, it had become as flexible as a recent bone submitted to the action of the same solvent. The periosteum was in some parts puffed out by carbonic acid gas, disengaged from the bone, and appeared to be in a state of perfect soundness.

‘To a portion of the solution of the bone in the muriatic acid some infusion of galls was added, which caused a copious precipitate of a dun colour. This proved to be tannate of gelatine, mixed with a small portion of the tannate and gallate of iron.

‘The cartilage and gelatine, therefore, so far from being destroyed, had not been perceptibly altered by time.’”

Until Baron Cuvier published his account of these remains[420], they were generally believed to have belonged to the same species as the moose deer or elk of North America, an opinion which appears to have been first advanced by Dr Thomas Molyneux in 1697[421], and which depends principally on the exaggerated description of that animal given by Josselyn in his account of two voyages to New England, published in 1674, in which he states that it is sometimes twelve feet high, with horns of two fathoms wide! This was the more readily believed by the learned Doctor, as it tended to confirm him in a favourite theory which he seems to have entertained, that Ireland had once been joined to the New Continent.

But the assertions of Josselyn regarding the size of the American moose have not been confirmed by the testimony of later travellers, from whose observations it is now clearly ascertained that the only large species of deer inhabiting the northern parts of America are the wapiti or Canadian stag (_Cervus canadensis_), the rein-deer (_C. Tarandus_), and the moose or elk (_C. Alces_).

The peculiar branching of the brow antlers of the rein-deer, and the rounded horns of the wapiti[422], are characters sufficient to prevent us confounding either of these animals with the fossil species.

The palmate form of the horns of the elk gave greater probability to the opinion of its specific identity with the fossil animal.

A little attention, however, to a few circumstances, will shew a most marked difference between them.

First, as to size, the difference is very remarkable, it not being uncommon to find the fossil horns ten feet between the extreme tips[423], while the largest elk’s horns never measure four feet. This measurement in a pair in the Museum of the Royal Dublin Society, is three feet seven inches: the largest pair seen by Pennant in the house of the Hudson’s Bay Company, measured thirty-four inches[424].

The horn of the elk has two palms, a lesser one which grows forward from the front of the beam, where the principal palm begins to expand. This is called brow antler by Cuvier, but it corresponds in situation rather to the sur-antler, there being, properly speaking, no brow antler attached to the root of the beam. The elk has no posterior antler similar to that of the fossil animal, nor does its beam take a similar arched direction, but runs more directly outwards.

Cuvier remarks, that the palm of the fossil horn increases in breadth as it extends outwardly, while that of the elk is broadest next the beam.

The palm of the elk’s horn is directed more backwards, while the fossil one extends more in the lateral direction. The antlers of the elk are shorter and more numerous than those of the fossil animals.

As the horns of the fossil animal exceed in size those of the elk, so, on the contrary, does the skull of the latter exceed in size that of the former; the largest heads of the fossil species not exceeding one foot nine inches in length, while the head of the elk is frequently two feet. The fossil head is broader in proportion; its length being to its breadth as two to one; in the elk they are as three to one, according to Parkinson.[425] The breadth of the skull between the roots of the horns is but four inches in the fossil skulls; in that of the elk in the Society’s Museum it is 6½ inches.

Cuvier thinks it probable that the females of the fossil species had horns[426], an opinion to which I am very much disposed to subscribe, from having observed that these parts present differences in size and strength, which appear not to be dependent on differences of age. For instance, the teeth of the specimen in Trinity College are much more worn down, and the sutures of the skull are more effaced than in the specimen described in this paper; yet the horns of the latter are much more concave, and more expanded, than those of the former; and on comparing a single horn of each of these specimens together, that belonging to the Society exceeds the other by nearly a sixth in the length, and little less than a third in the breadth; it is not, therefore, unlikely that the animal whose horns were larger and more curved was a male. Something similar to this is observed in the rein-deer, both sexes of which have horns, but with this difference, that they are smaller and less branched in the female. Hence we find that this animal possessed characters of its own sufficient to prove it of a species as distinct from the moose or elk as this latter species is from the rein-deer or any other. Therefore, it is improper to retain the name of elk or moose deer any longer: perhaps it might be better called the _Cervus megaceros_, a name merely expressive of the great size of its horns.

That this animal shed its head furniture periodically, is proved by the occasional occurrence of detached horns having the smooth convex surface below the burr, similar to what is observed on the cast horns of all deer. Specimens of this are to be seen in the Museum of Trinity College, and I possess one myself, of which I have had a drawing made. As every other species of deer shed their horns annually, there is no reason for supposing that that process occurred at longer intervals in this.

It is a popular opinion with the Indians that the elk is subject to epilepsy, with which he is frequently seized when pursued, and thus rendered an easy prey to the hunters. Many naturalists affect to disbelieve this account, without, however, assigning any sufficient reason. But if it be considered, that, during the growth of the horns, there must be a great increased determination of blood to those parts, which are supplied by the frontal artery, a branch from the internal carotid, it is quite conformable to well established pathological principles, to suppose, that, after the horns are perfected, and have ceased to receive any more blood, that fluid may be determined to those internal branches of the carotid which supply the brain, and establish a predisposition to such derangements of its circulation as would produce epilepsy, or even apoplexy: if such an effect were produced in consequence of the size of the horns in the elk, it is reasonable to suppose that it prevailed in a greater degree in the fossil animal whose horns were so much larger.

What could have been the use of these immense horns? It is quite evident that they would prevent the animal making any progress through a thickly wooded country, and that the long, tapering, pointed antlers were totally unfit for lopping off the branches of trees, a use to which the elk sometimes applies his horns[427], and for which they seem well calculated, by having their antlers short and strong, and set along the edge of the palm, somewhat resembling the teeth of a saw in their arrangement. It would rather appear, then, that they were given the animal as weapons for its protection, a purpose for which they seem to have been admirably designed; for their lateral expansion is such, that should occasion require the animal to use them in his defence, their extreme tips would easily reach beyond the remotest parts of his body; and if we consider the powerful muscles for moving the head, whose attachments occupied the extensive surfaces of the cervical vertebræ, with the length of the lever afforded by the horns themselves, we can easily conceive how he could wield them with a force and velocity which would deal destruction to any enemy having the hardihood to venture within their range.

From the formidable appearance of these horns, then, we must suppose that their possessor was obnoxious to the aggressions of some carnivorous animals of ferocious habits; and such we know to have abounded in Ireland, as the wolf, and the celebrated Irish wolf dog. Nor would it be surprising if limestone caves should be discovered in this country, containing the remains of beasts of prey and their victims, similar to the hyænas’ dens of Kirkdale, and other places, respecting which such interesting researches have been lately laid before the public by the geologists of this country and the Continent.

The absence of all record, or even tradition, respecting this animal[428], naturally leads one to inquire whether man inhabited this country during its existence? I think there is presumptive evidence in the affirmative of this question, afforded by the following circumstances. A head of this animal described by Professor Goldfuss of Bonn, was discovered in Germany in the same drain with several urns and stone hatchets; and in the 7th volume of the Archæologia Britannica, is a letter of the Countess of Moira, giving an account of a human body found in gravel, under eleven feet of peat soaked in the bog water: it was in good preservation, and completely clothed in antique garments of hair, which her ladyship thinks might have been that of our fossil animal. But more conclusive evidence on this question is derived from the appearance exhibited by a rib, presented by Archdeacon Maunsell to the Royal Dublin Society, in which I discovered an oval opening near its lower edge, the long diameter of which is parallel to the length of the rib, its margin is depressed on the outer, and raised on the inner surface, round which there is an irregular effusion of callus. This opening had been evidently produced by a sharp pointed instrument, which did not penetrate so deep as to cause the animal’s death, but which remained fixed in the opening for some length of time afterward; in fact it was such an effect as would be produced by the head of an arrow remaining in a wound after the shaft was broken off[429].

It is not improbable, therefore, that the chace of this gigantic animal once supplied the inhabitants of this country with food and clothing.

As to the causes which led to the extinction of this animal, whether it was suddenly destroyed by the deluge, or by some other great catastrophe of nature, or whether it was ultimately exterminated by the continued and successful persecution of its pursuers, as has nearly been the case with the red deer within the recollection of many of the present generation, I profess myself unable to form any decided opinion, owing to the limited number of facts as yet collected on the subject. On some future occasion I may, perhaps, be induced to revert to so interesting a topic, should I have opportunities of discovering any thing worthy of communication.

The following Table exhibits a comparative view of the measurements of different parts of the skeletons of the Cervus Megaceros in the Museum of the Royal Dublin Society, and in the Royal Museum of the University of Edinburgh, with some parts of the Moose. The measurements of the Edinburgh specimen are taken from Professor Jameson’s memoir on _organic remains_, in the Supplement to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

|R. D. Soc. |U. of Edin.| Moose HEAD. | Ft. In. | Ft. In. | Ft. In. | | | Length of the head, | 1 8½ | 1 8¼ | Breadth of the skull between | | | the orbits. | 0 10½ | 0 9 | Do. of skull at the occiput, | 0 8 | | Diameter of the orbit, | 0 2⅜ | 0 2½ | Distance between infra orbitar | | | holes across the skull, | 0 7 | | Length of alveolar processes | | | of the upper jaw, | 0 6 | 0 6 | Length of lower jaw, | 1 5½ | 0 3½ | Diam. of foramen magnum, | 0 2 | | | | | HORNS. | | | | | | Distance between the extreme | | | tips, measured by the skull, | 11 10 | | Ditto, in a straight line | | | across, | 9 2 | 6 8 | 3 7 Length of each horn, | 5 9 | 5 1 | Greatest breadth of the palm, | 2 10 | | Length of the beam, | 1 9 | | 0 6½ Ditto of brow antler, | 0 8¾ | | Ditto of sur-antler, | 1 4 | | Circumference of the beam | | | at root of brow antler, | 1 0¾ | | 0 7½ | | | BODY. | | | | | | Length of spine, | 10 10 | 9 8 | Ditto of sternum, | 2 4 | | Height to the upper extremity | | | of the dorsal spines, | 6 6 | | Ditto to the highest point | | | of the tip of the horn, | 10 4 | | | | | EXTREMITIES. | | | | | | Greatest length of the scapula,| 1 6½ | | Ditto breadth at the base, | 0 10¾ | | Ditto depth of its spine, | 0 2¾ | | Length of the humerus, | 1 4 | 1 3½ | Ditto of ulna and radius, | 1 8 | 1 6 | Ditto of carpus, | 0 2¾ | 0 2 | Circumference of do., | 0 9½ | | Length of metacarpus, | 1 0½ | 1 0½ | Length of phalanges, | 0 7 | 0 6½ | From anterior superior spine | | | of one ileum to that of | | | the other, | 1 4½ | 1 6½ | From anterior superior spine | | | to the tuber ischii, | 1 8 | 1 9½ | Greatest diameter of | | | foramen ovale, | 0 4 | 0 3 | Least do. of do., | 0 2¾ | 0 2¼ | Length of the femur, | 1 6½ | 1 5½ | Ditto of tibia, | 1 6 | 1 6 | Length of the tarsus, | | | including the os calcis, | 0 8 | | Ditto of the metatarsus, | 1 1¾ | 1 1¾ |

2. _Account of the Two Living Species of Elephant, and of the Extinct Species of Elephant, or Mammoth._

1. ELEPHAS AFRICANUS.--_The Elephant with rounded skull, large ears, grinders, having rhomboidal-shaped marks on their crown, which we call the African Elephant_ (_Elephas Africanus_), is a quadruped which has hitherto been found only inhabiting Africa. There can be no doubt that it is this species which lives at the Cape, at Senegal, and in Guinea; there is reason to believe that it also occurs at Mosambique; but it is not certain that individuals of the following species do not occur in this part of Africa. A sufficient number of individuals have not been figured or compared, to know if this species presents remarkable varieties. It is it that produces the largest tusks. Both sexes are equally furnished with tusks, at least at Senegal. _The natural number of the hoofs is four before, and three behind._ The ear is very large, and covers the shoulder. The skin is of a deep and uniform brown. This species has not been domesticated in modern times. It appears, however, to have been tamed by the ancients, who attributed to it less power and courage in that state than to the following species; but their observations do not appear to have been confirmed, at least in so far as refers to magnitude. Its natural manners are not perfectly known; yet judging of them by the notices of travellers, they appear to resemble in every thing essential those of the following species.

2. ELEPHAS INDICUS.--_The Elephant with elongated skull, concave forehead, small ears, grinders marked with undulating bands_, which we call the _Indian Elephant_ (_Elephas Indicus_), is a quadruped which has only been observed with certainty beyond the Indus. It extends from both sides of the Ganges to the Eastern Sea and the south of China. They are also found in the Islands of the Indian Sea, in Ceylon, Java, Borneo, Sumatra, &c. There is still no authentic proof that it exists in any part of Africa, although neither is the contrary absolutely proved. The inhabitants of India having from time immemorial been in the habit of taking this species and taming it, it has been much better observed than the other. Varieties have been remarked as to size, lightness of form, the length and direction of the tusks, and the colours of the skin. The females and some of the males have tusks which are always small and straight. The tusks of the other males never attain so great a length as in the African species[430]. _The natural number of the hoofs is five before and four behind._ The ear is small, frequently angular. The skin is commonly grey, spotted with brown. There are individuals entirely white. The height varies from fifteen to sixteen feet. Its manners, the mode of taking it, and of treating it, have been carefully described by many travellers and naturalists, from Aristotle down to Mr Corse Scott.

3. ELEPHAS PRIMIGENIUS, Blum, or MAMMOTH.--_The Elephant with elongated skull, concave forehead, very long alveolæ for the tusks, the lower jaw obtuse, the grinders broader, parallel, marked with closer bands_, which we name the _Fossil Elephant_ (_Elephas primigenius_, Blum.), is the _Mammoth_ of the Russians. Its bones are only found in the fossil state. No person has seen in a fresh state bones resembling those by which this species is peculiarly distinguished, nor have the bones of the two preceding species been seen in the fossil state.[431] Its bones are found in great number in many countries, but in better preservation in the north than elsewhere. It resembles the Indian more than the African species. It differs, however, from the former in the grinders, in the form of the lower jaw, and many other bones, but especially in the length of the alveolæ and tusks. This last character must have singularly modified the figure and organisation of its proboscis, and given it a physiognomy much more different from that of the Indian species, than might have been expected from the similarity of the rest of their bones. It appears that its tusks were generally large, frequently more or less spirally arcuate, and directed outwards. There is no proof that they differ much according to differences of sex or race. The size was not much greater than that to which the Indian species may attain; it appears to have been still clumsier in its proportions. It is already manifest from its osseous remains, that it was a species differing more from the Indian, than the ass from the horse, and the jackal and isatis from the wolf and fox. It is not known what had been the size of its ears, or the colour of its skin; but it is certain that, at least, some individuals bore two sorts of hair, namely, a red, coarse, tufted wool, and stiff black hairs, which, upon the neck and along the dorsal spine, became long enough to form a sort of mane. Thus, not only is there nothing impossible in its having been able to support a climate which would destroy the Indian species, but it is even probable that it was so constituted as to prefer cold climates. Its bones are generally found in the alluvial and superficial strata of the earth, and most commonly in the deposits which fill up the bottom of valleys, or which border the beds of rivers. They scarcely ever occur by themselves, but are confusedly mingled with bones of other quadrupeds of known genera, such as rhinoceroses, oxen, antelopes, horses, and frequently with remains of marine animals, particularly conchiferous species, some of which have even been found adhering to them. The positive testimony of Pallas, Fortis, and many others, does not allow us to doubt that this latter circumstance has frequently taken place, although it is not always observed. We ourselves have at this moment under our eyes a portion of a jaw covered with millepores and small oysters.