ly mentioned as to leave a doubt of the fact, ſo inaccurately deſcribed as not to authorize the claſſing them with the great northern bones, or ſo rare as to found a ſuſpicion that they have been carried thither as curioſities from more northern regions. So that on the whole there ſeem to be no certain veſtiges of the exiſtence of this animal further ſouth than the ſalines laſt mentioned. It is remarkable that the tuſks and ſkeletons have been aſcribed by the naturaliſts of Europe to the elephant, while the grinders have been given to the hippopotamus, or river horſe. Yet it is acknowledged, that the tuſks and ſkeletons are much larger than thoſe of the elephant, and the grinders many times greater than thoſe of the hippopotamus, and eſſentially different in form. Wherever theſe grinders are found, there alſo we find the tuſks and ſkeleton; but no ſkeleton of the hippopotamus nor grinders of the elephant. It will not be ſaid that the hippopotamus and the elephant came always to the ſame ſpot, the former to depoſit his grinders, and the latter his tuſks and ſkeleton. For what became of the parts not depoſited there? We muſt agree then that theſe remains belong to each other, that they are of one and the ſame animal, that this was not a hippopotamus, becauſe the hippopotamus had no tuſks nor ſuch a frame, and becauſe the grinders differ in their ſize as well as in the number and form of their points. That it was not an elephant, I think aſcertained by proofs equally deciſive, I will not avail my ſelf of the authority of the celebrated [1]anatomiſt, who, from an examination of the form and ſtructure of the tuſks, has declared
- ↑ Hunter.
H
