comparatively thicker than the Siberian; and with this striking difference between them both and the elephant, that the thigh-bones of the latter are round as well as slender, whereas those of the Mammoth are much flattened, so as to stand obliquely in the animal. After reciting the account given by Mr. Fabry, who states the place and manner in which Mr. le Baron de Longueuil, Mr. de Bienville, and Mr. de Lignery (lieutenant in Canada), found some of these bones and teeth on the Ohio in 1740, he proceeds; “Mr. du Hamel, of the Royal Academy of Sciences, informs us that Mr. de Longueuil had likewise brought, in 1740, some very large grinders found in Canada, and perhaps with the tusk and femur which I shall mention. These teeth have no characters in common with those of the elephant, but greatly resemble the teeth of the hippopotamus, so that there is reason to believe they may be part of that animal; for it can never be supposed that these teeth could have been taken from the same head with the tusks, or that it could have made part of the same skeleton with the femur above-mentioned: In supposing this, it would be necessary to suppose an UNKNOWN ANIMAL, which had tusks similar to those of the elephant, and grinders resembling those of the hippopotamus. (_Voyez les Memoires de l’Academie Royale des Sciences, Année 1762_).” [Footnote 1: Vol. XI. Page 169, No. MXXXV. Autre Femur d’Elephante.] Here M. de Buffon, however unwillingly, has drawn a true picture of the Mammoth, with some little variation, inasmuch as the tusks do resemble those of the elephant, except in having a greater curve and spiral twist, and as the teeth do resemble those of the hippopotamus, except that in the latter there are never more than three prongs, or blunt-pointed protuberances, on the grinding surface; whereas in this animal the large teeth have five and six, and the small teeth three and four prongs, very differently arranged from those of the former. The elephant, which is a graminivorous animal, is armed with tusks, more properly called by the French _defences_; but to me it appears nothing inconsistent with the nature of a carnivorous animal that it should be furnished with a similar weapon of offence and defence, and indeed from their form somewhat better calculated to answer those objects; therefore the number of instances in which these tusks and those carnivorous teeth were found with bones resembling the bones of the elephant, though larger, should have been taken as the strongest presumption that they were the fragments of one animal, which, from its fossil remains (accompanied with the most terrific and fabulous accounts), has been distinguished, both in Russia and America, by the name of MAMMOTH.