Although a simple comparison between the teeth of this animal and the elephant be sufficient to prove that the former is as certainly of a carnivorous as the latter of a graminivorous nature, yet the anatomist in examining further, will find complete satisfaction, from the internal structure of the jaw, as well as the position and growth of the teeth. I shall only observe here, that in the jaw of this animal, like those of all others of a carnivorous nature, the roots or fangs are inserted into the mass of bone, which not only surrounds the roots, but divides one tooth from the other; whereas in the elephant the grinders occupy one large and uniform cavity, from which they are gradually protruded as they are required for the purpose of grinding. To those who wish to study this subject more profoundly, it will be well to read, in the Philosophical Transactions for 1799, two learned papers by Mr. Corse and Mr. Home. Between the temporal bone of this animal and that of the elephant there is a considerable difference in every part; I shall only observe, that where the socket of the eye in the elephant appears scooped out of the anterior projection of the temporal bone, in this animal there is not the least appearance of such an orbit, but instead thereof, a great mass of bone. To those who have not seen the originals, words are inadequate to convey a correct idea of the difference in form between the jaw of this animal and that of the elephant. The under jaw of the elephant terminates in a point, which in its direction corresponds with the tusks; the same part in this animal is composed of a large projection of a foliated appearance like the leaf of the mallard. And although the lip of the elephant is large and powerful, in this there appears the origin of one infinitely more so; perhaps a long and powerful assistant to the proboscis which it probably had. There is no positive proof that it had a proboscis, but from the shortness of the neck and magnitude of the tusks, it is reasonable to suppose that it was furnished with some such contrivance; that part in which it must have originated is deficient in both skeletons; and although I have met with several accounts of the distance between the orbits of the eyes in fragments of heads, they were never accompanied with any mention of such place of insertion for a proboscis.