In the Mammoth the spinus processes are much longer and thicker, in proportion with the rest of the animal, than they are in the elephant, whose head is drawn up close to them by the ligaments attached to the deep cavity in the back of the head before-mentioned; in the Mammoth this cavity being situated higher from the condyle of the neck and attached to much longer spines, must act with an advantage proportioned to the magnitude of the head and the weight of the tusks or defenses. Besides, these spines are so long, and the form of the ribs such, that unless we suppose them covered with a superfluous quantity of flesh, the back of the animal could not have been _round_ like that of the elephant, but sharp like that of a hog. As the inhabitant of a cold climate, it is probable the Mammoth was clothed with hair or wool, which in most situations was quickly liable to decay. The only instance of hair being found with the remains of this animal, occurred in a morass belonging to Mr. A. Colden, in the neighbourhood where this skeleton was found. The hair was coarse, long and brown, a large mass of it together, and so rotten that, after a few days exposure to the air, it fell into a powder. The skeleton of the Mammoth[3], merely as a skeleton, is certainly entitled to some attention; as the skeleton of a very large and non-descript animal it becomes more interesting, to those in particular who are disposed to think on the subject; whether its extirpation be attributed to the power of man, the prevalence of famine, or the violent and sudden irruption of water. There are many facts to support this latter opinion, which I confess myself disposed to adopt. [Footnote 3: Strahlenberg, in his Historico-Geographical Description, observes, that the Russian name is _Mammoth_, which is a corruption from _Memoth_, a word derived from the Arabic _Mehemot_, signifying the same as the _Behemot_ of Job. This word is applied to any animal of extraordinary size.]