Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London/Volume 35/On Remains of Mastodon and other Vertebrata of the Miocene Beds of the Maltese Islands

by Andrew Leith Adams

 

40. On Remains of Mastodon and other Vertebrata of the Miocene Beds of the Maltese Islands. By A. Leith Adams, Esq., F.R.S., F.G.S, Professor of Natural History in Queen's College, Cork. (Read December 18, 1878).

[Plate XXV.]

The well-deserved reputation maintained by the Maltese Islands in connexion with their fossil fauna has been increased by a discovery lately made by my distinguished friend Mr. C. A. Wright, F.L.S. In a collection of animal remains he has lately forwarded to me from the Miocene beds of the islands, among other interesting relics I find two molars of Mastodon. The finding of Proboscideans in the rock-strata is of especial concern, and cannot prove otherwise than suggestive with reference to the historical geology of the deposits. I propose therefore, in the first place, to epitomize the main facts relating to the structure and stratigraphical arrangement of the beds and their characteristic fossils, considering especially how far there is evidence of any of the fauna having been derived from older formations. In the second place, I will enumerate all the Vertebrata hitherto discovered in the Miocene beds. The Invertebrata have been carefully described or named by Forbes^[1], Wright^[2], Davidson^[3], Rupert Jones^[4], Martin Duncan^[5], and Woodward^[6]. As described in a previous paper^[7], Maltese formations are divisible into (1) the Upper Limestone, (2) Sand bed, (3) Marl, (4) Calcareous Sandstone, (5) Lower Limestone; all of which are conformable.

I. The Upper Limestone attains its greatest depth in the island of Comino, which is composed of it entirely, attaining a thickness of about 250 feet above the sea-level. It is the surface-formation along the western portion of Malta and the highlands of Gozo; but I doubt if its original thickness is preserved anywhere. Indications of more recent beds are seen in blocks of weathered limestone known as the Gozo marble, which are seen strewing the valley eastward of the light-house on the northern shore, and in fragments of a black marble or limestone which strew the sides and summits of the Gozo hills^[8]. Bike all the other beds, it has been extensively denuded at different points, and is being now rapidly broken up by aqueous and atmospheric agencies. In its structure the following characters seem constant. (1) The upper portion is much broken and intersected by cracks and fissures, forming a rubbly white limestone, which forms the surface rock of the Benjemma plateau. (2) The above passes imperceptibly into a yellowish white rock, which is soft and forms almost a calcareous sandstone easily acted on by the weather, as is well seen on the cliffs west of Città Vecchia. (3) The last gradually merges into a red limestone of considerable durability and composed more or less of Corallines, Nullipores, Polyzoa, &c. It forms a prominent feature in the cliffs of Gozo and south-western aspects of Malta.

The invertebrate fossils of the Upper Limestone are numerous; but it is markedly poor in vertebrata as compared with the underlying formations.

The following Brachiopoda collected by me in the Upper Limestone have been determined by Mr. Davidson^[9], F.R.S.,—Terebratula sinuosa, Megerlia truncata, Argiope decollata, Rhynchonella bipartita.

The Mollusca are represented by at least five species of Pecten—to wit, P. Pandora, P. burdigalensis, P. Beudanti, P. scabellus, P. varius—and 3 or 4 undetermined species. Spondylus quinquecostatus is common. Casts of Conus, Venus, Cardium, Turritella, Haliotis, Murex, Fusus, and other genera are not uncommon^[10].

The Echinodermata amount to 25 species, of which ten seem peculiar, whilst Clypeaster alius, G. marginatus, and Cidaris melitensis are among the most common species, and they are likewise met with in the Sand bed.

II. The Sand bed is the most variable of all the formations, both as relates to its mineral composition and its organic remains. The point of transition between it and the Red Limestone is often im- perceptible, the latter gradually becoming less compact and more granular until it degenerates into an indurated red sand made up more or less of the Heterostegina depressa, which forms horizontal bands along cliff-sections or lies in disordered masses throughout many feet perpendicularly. These characters are displayed in cliff- exposures south of Dingli in Malta, and in the ravines of Emthaleb and Ramla Bay in Gozo.

Sometimes the Upper Limestone gradually merges into a black indurated sand composed of particles of glauconite, felspar, topaz, &c, which forms a variegated bed made up of black, green, brown, and red sands intermixed and stratified. This variety is well seen on the scarp of the hill of Chelmus in Gozo, where it is fully 30 feet in thickness. Altogether the greatest depth attained by the Sand bed may be little less than 60 feet.

The characteristic fossil of this bed is undoubtedly the Foraminifer just named, which, however, is not confined to it, but is met with in all the beds, although never in the exceeding numbers which characterize the red or Heterostegina-stratum.

Of Vertebrata, out of 15 forms in the Sand bed, only two species of Pycnodont fishes have, so far as I know, turned up in the Upper Limestone.

There is, however, a decided agreement between the Invertebrata, as is shown by no less than 14 genera and many species being common to both.

The genus Pecten, so plentiful in the Maltese Miocene, is represented in the Sand bed by four species, also met with in the Upper Limestone. Of the Brachiopoda, Terebratula sinuosa and Megerlia truncata are common to both formations, besides nine species of Echinodermata, whilst nearly all the Polyzoa, Cœlcnterata, and Protozoa seem undistinguishable.

III. The Marl bed varies very much in thickness, thinning out for a depth of upwards of a hundred feet to scarcely an indication of its presence. It is the most perishable of the beds, and is being rapidly denuded. It varies in colour and composition, from a dark blue or drab colour to a light brown or grey; some sorts form a fair plastic clay, being both stiff and tenacious, whilst the light-coloured run in the form of horizontal bands.

Of foreign components, nodules of sulphuret and peroxide of iron, and gypsum, are plentiful, and often incrustthe fossil remains, whilst the crystalline and lamellar varieties of gypsum are also common. Besides these, nodules of an ochreous-coloured clay perforated by Pholad-borings, and containing casts of these mollusks, are not rare, and are apparently derivative.

The most characteristic fossils of the Marl are a cuttle-bone of a small Sepia and casts of Nautilus, which Dr. Woodward, F.R.S., and his late brother, Dr. S. P. Woodward, F.G.S., assured me are undistinguishable from the typical specimen of Nautilus ziczac.

The organic remains are not, as a rule, in a good state of preservation; however, out of 25 genera and species of Mollusca belonging to the Sand bed, I have recognized as many as 13 in the Marl. The only Brachiopod of the two upper formations that I have likewise found in the Marl is Terebratula sinuosa, which is not uncommon, and is the only representative of the group I have seen from this bed.

Of the 11 Echinodermata of the Sand bed not a single species has turned up hitherto to my knowledge in the Marl; but Echinolampas Laurillardi is common to the Marl and the Upper Limestone, whilst Hemiaster Scillæ makes its first appearance in the Marl. These are the only Echinida I have found in the latter, excepting ossicles of un- determined species of Asteroidca, which are found in all the formations.

IV. The Calcareous Sandstone.

The point of transition between the Marl and the Calcareous Sandstone is often abrupt.

The latter presents considerable variability both in the general character of the rock and its components. The most interesting are four well-marked seams of nodules, which differ considerably. Many of these lumps contain casts of Mollusca, and display appearances of having been rolled. They may be irregular in shape and consistence, or polished and rounded. The following is the result of very many careful examinations of cliff- and horizontal sections of this formation made by me during five years' work on the Maltese deposits.

The uppermost portion of the bed is composed of a pale grey freestone, soft and easily worked. Traversing this bed is a band of nodules, for the most part rounded and loosely arranged: it often thins out to a mere indication of a bed; indeed it would seem to be sometimes wanting. This, the First Nodule seam, is generally characterized by the abundance of casts of what have been supposed to be a Pteropod allied to Hyalea, and a Vaginella undistinguishable from V. depressa.

About eight feet below the last nodule-seam, in a fawn-coloured sandstone, is the Second Nodule seam, which is readily distinguished, not only from its position but from the small round nodules and their loose arrangement. They are usually of a brown colour; and when broken present no apparent characters distinct from those of the parent rock. The thickness of the band is often from three to four feet. It abounds with organic remains, and has produced nearly all the Vertebrata and the majority of the Invertebrata of the Calcareous Sandstone. It is a famous horizon from which the teeth of Squalidæ are obtained.

About the middle of the bed a few scattered nodules of a light green colour extend in broken lines, but rarely agglomerated; and they are not unfrequently absent.

About thirty feet below the second seam is the Third, distinguishable by the irregular shape of its nodules, which are of a dark brown colour, firmly cemented together, and apparently of the same mineral structure as the parent rock. They repose on a surface broken up by pot-holes and crevices, in which many of the nodules are contained. This stratum is highly fossiliferous; but, from the firmness and hardness of the matrix, organic remains are extracted with difficulty. It varies in thickness from 1 to 4 feet, and may be seen to the greatest advantage on the shore-line westward of the lighthouse of Gozo.

Prom twenty-four to forty feet below the last is the Fourth Seam in a pale-coloured sandstone. It is made up of light-brown nodules of irregular shape and of variable thickness. It marks the point of transition between the Calcareous Sandstone and Lower Limestone beds. Sometimes a seam of rounded nodules of limestone traverses the rock in place of these calcareous nodules; the former differ in their waterworn aspect and the great firmness of their matrix, which is composed of fragments of shells of various forms found in both formations. Moreover the fourth nodule seam may be replaced by lines of broken shells.

As to the mineral composition of the nodules generally, I repeat that there was apparently do distinction to he made between them and detached fragments of the parent-rock or of the Lower Limestone, as the case might be. They had the aspect of having been washed and worn by marine action, and contained the fossils of the bed and many forms not found in it.

The greatest thickness of the calcareous sandstone may be a little over 200 feet.

Besides the nodule seams, interspersed throughout the bed are dense bands and nodules of chert, of a grey-brown colour and conchoidal fracture. These may take the shape of rounded masses, but are oftener seen forming thin seams in a pale-coloured sandstone towards the base of the bed. Concretionary nodules of red hæmatite and clay-ironstone are also met with throughout the bed, but in greatest abundance in the upper parts near to the marl; also in the same situation nodules of crystallized gypsum appear, even below the first nodule seam, where lumps of iron-pyrites, with sulphur in small quantities, are met with as in the overlying marl.

The Vertebrata will be noticed in the sequel.

The invertebrate fauna of the Calcareous Sandstone and the nodule seams are conspicuously represented by Pecten and Echinida, Pecten cristatus, Bronn?, P. scabellus, and P. squamulosus being plentiful. Clavagella and from 2 to 3 species of Scalaria, and Spondylus, Ostrea Boblayei, and O. Virleti are common, besides numerous other species^[11].

Out of 21 forms met with in the Marl, about 12 affect also the Calcareous Sandstone and its nodule bands.

The Brachiopoda are Terebratula sinuosa, T. minor, Terebratulina caput-serpcntis, and Thecidium Adamsi, the first being the only one common also to the marl.

Of 22 species of Echinodermata found in the Calcareous Sandstone, 9 are common to it and the Upper Limestone, whilst 4 are also common to the Sand bed, and 2 are also found in the Marl.

Foraminifera in this bed are noticed Geol. Mag. vol. iii. p. 152.

V. The Lower Limestone has its upper horizon marked by what I have named the "Transition or Scutella-bed"^[12].

The upper portion of this stratum passes so imperceptibly into the Calcareous Sandstone that, were it not for certain organic remains which constantly mark the point of transition, it would be difficult to define where the one ends and the other begins.

The saucer-shaped Scutella subrotunda and the Orbitoides Mantelli^[13] congregate in the above situation in great abundance.

The Lower Limestone presents considerable variability. It may be concretionary and oolitic in its composition, or irregularly compact and often semicrystalline. Large portions are made up of broken shells, Corallines and Foraminifera, whilst the structure of much of the upper parts is made of globular white nodules, strewn irregularly throughout a lamellar or concentric bedding.

The colour varies from a pure white to a cream-colour.

The Lower Limestone attains a height of about 400 feet above the sea-level.

A nodule-seam frequently replaces the Scutella- or Orbitoides-stratum, and is made up of detached fragments of the parent rock and the Calcareous Sandstone firmly cemented together. At Bas-el-Kala, in Gozo, it is represented by a remarkable bed of oyster-shells, chiefly belonging to Ostrea Boblayei.

The difficulties attending examinations of the cliff-sections, together with the indifferent state of preservation, render the enumeration of the fauna of the lowermost bed more imperfect than that of the others. Besides the foregoing, Ostrea navicularis, a fossil of the Sand bed, is also common in the lowermost rock. Pecten cristatus, Bronn?, is apparently also plentiful, together with P. squamulosus of the Sand and Calcareous Sandstone; and what has been named P. varius is also apparently common to all the formations excepting the Calcareous Sandstone. Spondylus quinquecostatus, or else a very closely allied species, is common to the Upper and Lower Limestones besides the Calcareous Sandstone. But the characteristic and most plentiful fossils, especially in the uppermost portions of the Lower Limestone, are casts of Conus, some of large size, and other genera not sufficiently preserved to admit of specific determination, among others Haliotis, of which there are apparently more than one species; indeed the genus is represented in all the formations.

The Brachiopoda are Terebratula minor and Thecidium Adamsi, common also to the Calcareous Sandstone.

The Echinodermata identified by me amount to 20 species, of which 13 are also common to the Calcareous Sandstone, 1 (H. scillæ) to the Marl, 3 to the Sand bed, and 11 to the Upper Limestone—to wit, Cidaris melitensis, Psammechinus Ducei, Echinolampas Kleinii, Hemiaster Cotteaui, Schizaster Scillæ, S. Parkinsonii (the most common Echinoid in the Maltese rocks), Toxobrissus crescenticus, Brissus cylindricus, B. oblongus, Eupatagus De-Koninckii, Spatangus delphinus.

Foraminifera in this bed, noticed in Geol. Mag. vol. iii. p. 152.

I must here take notice of a remark of M. Fuchs in a note to his paper on the "Age of the Tertiary Beds of Malta"^[14], wherein he observes "that the statement advanced by Spratt, Adams, and other authors, that the same species of Pecten and Echinida recur in the Lower as well as in the Upper Limestone," is not correct, and that the error may have arisen from confounding P. Haueri and deletus of the lower beds with P. spinulosus and costatus, which occur equally plentifully in the upper beds. Again, the writer observes "that, with the exception of the Thecidium Adamsi from the Lower Limestone, all the remaining Brachiopoda were exceedingly rare, although, according to the statements of the authors, they are said to occur not only in great quantities, but are even said sometimes to form whole banks." M. Fuchs further states that "he was unable to discover Terebratula ampulla, T. minor, and Terebratulina caput-serpentis." He moreover, in consequence of his failure to discover these species, supposes, as they are plentiful in the Pliocene of Sicily, that certain specimens described by Davidson were imported from that island and incorporated with the Maltese Miocene.

With reference to the Pectens above mentioned, whilst I admit the possibility of confounding the broken and scarcely, at the best, entire specimens from the Lower Limestone with T. spinulosus and T. costatus, so plentiful in the red or coralline bed of the Upper Limestone, I must aver, so far as the Brachiopoda and Echinodermata, whose distributions have just been detailed, are concerned, I see no reason whatever to retract any thing that I have stated, or in the observations made by me in the papers on these two groups, so ably described by my distinguished friends, Dr. Wright, F.R.S., F.G.S.^[15], and Mr. Davidson, F.R.S.^[16] At the same time I quite agree with the latter that the so-called "Maltese" Waldheimia Garibaldiana^[17] has assuredly no claims to be so considered; and I can suggest the probable cause of M. Fuchs's bad fortune in not finding fossils in the Maltese beds where his predecessors assert they are common, by the circumstance that as the majority of the specimens are obtained from cliff and horizontal sections, where the rock decomposing leaves the fossil prominently exposed, it so happened that during a period of nearly six years I was almost constantly engaged with others in making collections wherever the nature of the ground would permit a sound footing; so that many exposures, once extremely prolific of fossils, became absolutely denuded of every vestige of animal remains recognizable, at all events, to the naked eye.

Consequent on the apparent discrepancies between the uppermost and lowermost beds, M. Fuchs, in his able and interesting paper just referred to, divides the Maltese beds into two groups, which he considers are "palæontologically most sharply separated from one another, and have only a very few fossils in common"—a statement true in some degree, but certainly not to the extent he imagines; nor is it so pronounced as, in my opinion, to warrant the removal of the uppermost beds from the other formations.

I shall now proceed to the consideration of the vertebrate fauna of the formations.

 

VERTEBRATA.

Mammalia.

Mastodon augustidens? (Plate XXV. figs. 5, 5 a.)

The specimens by which the presence of remains of Mastodon in the lower beds of the Miocene formations of the Island of Gozo is established, comprehend two imperfect molars. Fig. 5 retains only the two anterior and one of the middle ridges, the remainder of the crown having been broken recently and lost.

The other tooth is still more imperfect, only one of the anterior and middle nipples remaining. It differs, however, from the former crown; for whilst its anterior ridges have also been quite recently broken off, the surface of the tooth, where the two companion ridges of those still extant should be, is firmly incrusted with the matrix, showing that the enamel had been denuded prior to or during the imbedment of the tooth.

Both molars have the bases of their crowns where the fangs originate also covered with the characteristic calcareous sandstone of the islands.

Mr. Wright informed me that he procured the specimens from a native boy, and that he visited the spot and fully confirmed the statements of the finder. The specimens were found at different times by the same lad, and were cut out of the solid compact Calcareous Sandstone^[18].

The specimen fig. 5, was discovered in October 1871, on one of the "nodule-seams" of the Calcareous Sandstone, close to the shore, and nearly at the sea-level, in the Bay of Marsa el Forno, on the N.E. of Gozo.

The other tooth "was found in December 1873 in the same horizon, but at a distance of a few hundred yards further westward, near the promontory called Kola Baida."

The characters and state of detrition of the crowns are the same in both teeth, which are no doubt penultimate molars.

That they belonged to a trilophodont Mastodon seems to me probable from the diminished extent of continuity, indicating a surface barely sufficient for two additional ridges, and which must have been smaller a good deal than those still existing.

Both molars, especially that shown in fig. 5, display much roughening (r) of the enamel around the base of the ridges and outlying mamillæ. In these respects, as in the presence of other digitations on the crown and sides of the ridges, they approach M. angustidens rather than M. Borsoni in character.

A broad pressure-mark (p) is seen on either tooth on the talon.

The dimensions and characters, so far as procurable, agree with those of the penultimate of M. angustidens; but altogether they are insufficient for the differentiation of species.

 

Phoca rugosidens, Owen.

Professor Owen, to whom I sent the teeth (Pl. XXV. figs. 1, 2) from Malta, has named them rugosidens, from the pronounced roughening of the enamel. Altogether four specimens were discovered in the Calcareous Sandstone of Gozo^[19], two of which, from Mr. Wright's collection, are also represented with the above.

The British Museum possesses the portion of a left ramus, shown in Pl. XXV. fig. 1. It is No. 33243 of the Palæontological Collection, and was presented by Earl Ducie. The fragment is incrusted with gypseous crystals and matrix of the Marl bed. Unfortunately the teeth are wanting; the jaw, however, in general characters is decidedly phocine, whilst the rather unusual depth of the horizontal ramus and the unusually high angle formed in front by the coronoid furnish important characters.

Canine teeth of large size, and referable to Phocidæ, are common in the Saud bed, and are also somewhat plentiful in the nodule-seams of the Calcareous Sandstone. Two portions, a fang and crown, in Mr. Wright's collection, are from the black-grained variety of the Sand bed. The former shows a maximum girth of fang of about 41/2 inches; and the enamel is rough, like that of the grinders just referred to.

Thus the genus Phoca is represented from the Sand, Marl, and Calcareous Sandstone.

 

Squalodon.

The well-known fragment of a jaw with three teeth in place, discovered by Scilla in Malta about 1670^[20], and now in the Woodwardian Museum, Cambridge, is the only instance I know of carnivorous Cetaceans from these beds. The matrix would indicate that it was obtained from one of the nodule seams of the Calcareous Sandstone. Hitherto it has been included in the genus Zeuglodon; but the much smaller dimensions and more triangular and serrated teeth place it with Grateloup's genus Squalodon.

 

Delphinus.

Professor Owen recognized remains of more than one species of Delphinus in Admiral Spratt's collection from the Sand bed^[21]; and fragments of jaws with teeth in situ were recognized by me in collections made by the late Captain Strickland from the Calcareous Sandstone.

Large-sized Cetacean vertebras are not uncommon in nearly all the beds, but especially in the Sand bed, where I also discovered the greater portion of a mandible^[22].

 

Halitherium Schinzi? Kaup.

Remains referable to the genus Halitherium have been already recorded from Maltese Miocene formations, as follows:—

1. A molar from a nodule bed of Calcareous Sandstone, and an "ear-bone" composed of the periotic and tympanic, together with several caudal vertebræ, from the Sand bed^[23].

2. I have also figured and described a similar tooth (possibly a penultimate true molar) in my work on Malta^[24], from the Lower Limestone.

3. In the notice of the foregoing I refer to a fragment of a jaw with two teeth in situ. This interesting relic, now in the British Museum, was found in Gozo, and might have been lost but for the vigilant eyes of Mr. Wright, who brought it to the notice of Admiral Spratt. It is the specimen examined by Falconer, and which he compared with Halitherium and Listriodon, and has justly referred to the former^[25]. The limestone matrix seen on the specimen indicates the uppermost or else the lowermost formation; which, it is impossible to say.

The specimen No. 4085 is a fragment of a left maxilla, about 31/2 inches in length. The outer table is removed, showing the fangs of the penultimate true molar. Part of the socket of the ultimate molar remains; the penultimate is entire, whilst the antepenultimate has lost a portion of the crown externally. The crown of the last premolar is broken off; and a pit in front indicates the position of the preceding tooth.

The jaw is shown, crown and profile, natural size, in Plate XXV. figs. 3 and 3a. The second true molar is quite unworn, like the preceding specimen. It displays the two ridges with a deep open internal valley and the two pits, one anteriorly and the other on the posterior aspect of the crown. The dimensions of this tooth are as follows:—

	millim.
Length including fangs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	34
Antero-posterior diameter of crown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	20
Breadth of crown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	21
Height of crown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	14

4. The broken crown from Mr. Wright's collection (Plate XXV. fig. 4) carries good evidence of the formation in which it was found, being incrusted with a matrix of red sand from the Sand bed in Gozo^[26]. The crown-pattern is characteristic; and the tooth is probable a penultimate true molar of the mandible.

5. Several vertebræ covered with clay and crystals of gypsum, together with fragments of ribs, are in the British Museum. They show that they were derived from the marl and nodule seams of the Calcareous Sandstone, whilst the characters assimilate to the same parts of Halitherium, not so cogently, however, as the preceding.

I take this opportunity of correcting a mistake made in my former communication to the Society^[27],wherein I state that remains of Dugong are also found in the Maltese rocks. This I have since discovered is not the case, and that all Sirenian remains which have come under my notice may be referred to Halitherium.

From the data here furnished the Halitherium has left its remains in all the Maltese formations excepting the Upper Limestone.

 

Reptilia.

Ichthyosaurus gaudensis, Hulke^[28].

The above was discovered in the Calcareous Sandstone, it was said, of Gozo. I was long familiar with the specimen, and urged the late Captain Strickland to send it to England for comparison. There can be no question of its being from the Miocene of the Maltese Islands.

 

Melitosaurus champsoides, Owen.

Besides the original specimen described by Owen and now in the British Museum from the Calcareous Sandstone of Gozo, there is a tooth undistinguishable from that of this species in Mr. Wright's collection, seemingly from the nodule-bed of the same formation.

 

Crocodilus gaudensis, Hulke^[29].

This specimen was obtained from the Calcareous Sandstone of either Malta or Gozo. Of its origin there cannot be any doubt, as I had frequently examined it in Captain Strickland's museum, and it was sent at my instigation to England for comparison. Indeed there are indications in the public and private collections in Valetta of more than one species of Crocodilus from the Calcareous Sandstone and its "nodule seams."

 

Pisces.

Sterodus Melitensis, Owen.

The only example known to me of this "Cycloid with Sauroid dentition" is that described by Professor Owen in the Geological Magazine, vol. ii. p. 145. It was obtained from the upper portion of the Calcareous Sandstone in the quarry of Lucca, Malta.

 

Myliobates toliapicus?

Teeth of more than one species are found in the Sand, Marl, Sandstone, Calcareous, and Lower Limestone beds.

Specimens from the first and last named beds did not appear to differ in any particulars from M. toliapicus of Agassiz, whilst spines of large size are not rare in the Marl.

 

Otobates subconvexus, Agassiz.

Several teeth from the Sand bed, and less entire specimens from the Marl, in which they are plentiful, cannot be distinguished from the above.

 

Squalidæ.^[30]

The Sharks' remains are the most varied and numerous of all the vertebrates of the Maltese Miocene. Their teeth have found their way into almost every public collection in Europe, and continue to furnish employment to persons who make it their business to dispose of them to travellers. With the exception of the Upper Lime- stone, they have been found in all the beds. From a large experience in collecting and determining the Maltese species, I have been enabled to furnish the following Table of their stratigraphical distribution.

	Upper Limestone.	Sand.	Marl.	Calcareous Sandstone.	Lower Limestone.
Carcharodon megalodon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	...	⁎	⁎	⁎	⁎
Carcharias productus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	...	⁎	⁎	⁎	⁎
Oxyrhina xiphodon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	...	⁎	...	⁎
—— hastilis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	...	⁎	...	⁎
—— Mantelli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	...	⁎
Hemispristis serra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	...	⁎	...	⁎
—— paucidens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	...	⁎	...	⁎
Corax aduncus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	...	⁎
Odontaspis Hopei? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	...	...	⁎	⁎
Lamna elegans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	...	...	...	⁎

So far as I know, none of these Squalidæ has been discovered in the upper and middle portions of the Upper Limestone. They suddenly appear, however, at the point of junction between the Red Limestone and the Sand bed, where they are plentiful, especially Carcharodon megalodon, some of the largest specimens of the teeth of which have been discovered here. The Maltese historian, Boisgelin, refers to one as much as 7 inches on its largest side^[31]; and I have referred to a tooth from the black sand 6⋅3 inches in length^[32]. It is in this bed, and the Calcareous Sandstone, more especially in the upper "nodule seams," that they abound, and in the latter associated with Mollusca and Echinodermata.

I have rarely found teeth in the Lower Limestone, and these only of the two species recorded above.

As regards numbers, they are met with in the order given, the two rarest being Odontaspis Hopei (which, however, I have not seen with its dentils), and Lamna elegans.

 

Notidanus primigenius?

A tooth resembling that of this species is figured by Scilla^[33]; and this is the only record of its existence in the Maltese strata. The specimen was, perhaps, from the Calcareous Sandstone.

 

Platax Woodwardi, Agassiz.

Several specimens discovered by me in the Calcareous Sandstone of Malta were subsequently determined by the late Dr. S. P. Woodward, F.G.S. They were of the pear-shaped outline, with a process and small indentation on one side, representing the concretionary appendage of the vertebræ and ribs, like the specimens common in the Red Crag.

 

Diodon.

This group is represented by teeth varying much in dimensions. It is one of the few vertebrates hitherto discovered in the Upper Limestone, where, doubtless, there are more than one species. Teeth are not uncommon in the Calcareous Sandstone, but chiefly in the nodule seams; whilst unusually large specimens indicate very large globe fishes in the Lower Limestone.

 

Sphærodus.

This genus is well dispersed throughout all the beds, and was evidently represented by several distinct forms. Teeth of a species not distinguishable from those of S. gigas, Pictet, are rather common in the Sand bed. I have seen impressions of the greater portions of the skeleton of a fish of the type of Sphærodus in the Calcareous Sandstone, where the smaller teeth are occasionally found. I quite anticipate that the future will show a large addition to the Pycnodont fishes of the Maltese Miocene beds.

The question whether the stratified seams of nodules and the lumps of yellow clay with pholad-borings met with in the Marl together with other adventitious materials and their associated animal remains belong to the same period as the beds in which they are found, seems to me scarcely to admit of a positive answer at present.

The lumps of ochreous-coloured clay met with in masses several inches in circumference are very irregularly dispersed throughout the Marl, and seem to have been derived from the degradation of older beds. The hardened nodules of the Calcareous Sandstone with particles of Sharks teeth and tests of Echinidæ and Mollusca found in their interior, together with the abundant animal remains associated with them, might point to their redeposition. But a very large number of the species found in the nodule-seams are also dispersed throughout the beds in situations where their appearance indicates a tranquil deposition, as further shown by the entire skeletons of fishes &c. found along with them. At the same time the Mastodon, Halitherium, Squalodon, and Delphinus, more or less met with in all excepting the Upper Limestone, seem to preserve the Miocene facies both for the nodule seams and the respective beds in which the remains are found.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE XXV.

Fig. 1. Fragment of a left ramus of a mandible of Phoca: nat. size.

2, 2a, 2b, 2c. Four teeth of Phoca rugasidens, Owen: nat. size.

3 & 3a. Crown and profile views of a portion of a left maxilla of Halitherium Schinzi?, Kaup: nat. size.

4. Crown view of a lower penultimate? molar of Halitherium Schinzi?, Kaup: nat. size.

5 & 5a. Crown and profile of molar of Mastodon: nat. size.

 

Discussion.

The President remarked that, according to observations which he had lately made, rocks appeared often to suffer contemporaneous erosion, frequently being broken up into small fragments and redeposited.

Prof. Boyd Dawkins was of opinion that the Ichthyosaurus belonged to quite a different stage of evolution from that of the Miocene Mammalia. In illustration of the association of fossils with those of a different age, the Ichthyosaurus and Sphærodus gigas in the Neocomian beds of Bedfordshire and Cambridge might be quoted, derived from the Kimmeridge Clay; and he thought there was no reason to believe that Ichthyosaurus lived in the Miocene period in Europe. The specimens mentioned in the paper were probably derived.

Prof. Duncan thought that many of the fossils mentioned in connexion with the nodules were remaniés. As regards the age of the beds, his investigation of the corals had led him to the conclusion that they were Upper Miocene. He thought that the district bore evidence of subsidence. If the age of the upper deposits in Malta was Pliocene (as it might be), the whole might be connected with the upheaval of the Apennines. He thought Malta marked a point of near approach between the European and African continents.

Mr. Hulke stated that he had dealt with the Ichthyosaurus jaw from Malta simply as an anatomical question, not with reference to the deposits whence it had come. Still he must say it did not look worn, and the teeth were very like those of I. enthekiodon from the Kimmeridge Clay. However, on the point of age he would express no opinion.

Mr. Charlesworth, remembering how opinion had changed on the subject of Trigonia, did not see why an Ichthyosaurus might not have survived to the Tertiary period. Caution, however, was necessary; for Cretaceous fossils were often found in the Pliocene, and it was often hard to say whether fossils were derivative or not. He argued, from his view of the nodules in the Crag and the Lias, that they were concretionary. He thought that, from the evidence before the Society, the species of Mastodon could not be determined.

Prof. T. P. Jones expressed his gratitude for the information given by Prof. Leith Adams in his paper on the Mastodon of Malta,

Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. Vol. XXXV. Pl. XXV.

MALTESE MAMMALS.

as regards both the fossils and the stratigraphical details. He offered some remarks on the structure of the island and of its strata.

Mr. Hulke remarked that we now knew that many of the old life-forms had a wide range in space and time. For example, the Iguanodon was once supposed to be restricted to the Wealden; but he thought there was clear evidence that it lived in Purbeck time, and also in all probability (from the evidence of a femur in the British Museum) survived to the Maestricht Chalk.

Prof. Seeley said the Woodwardian Museum contained Icthyosaurus vertebræ from the London Clay of Sheppey, which might or might not be derived, possibly Liassic, as he rather suspected, possibly a new form.

1. Proc. Geol. Soc. vol. iv. p. 230.
2. Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 2, vol. xv.; Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xx. p. 474.
3. Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 3, vol. xiv.; & Geol. Mag. 1864.
4. Geologist, April 1864, & Geol. Mag. vol. i. p. 102.
5. Geol. Mag. vol. i. p. 97.
6. Report Brit. Assoc. 1872, p. 325. Dr. Woodward is engaged in working out the Crustacea collected by me in the Maltese Islands.
7. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xx. p. 470. See also Spratt, Proceed. Geol. Soc. vol. iv. p. 225. The geological map appended to the author's memoir on the elephants of Malta in the Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. ix. pl. xxii. maybe referred to with advantage.
8. A fragment of this limestone, examined by Professor Rupert Jones, F.R.S., showed Amphisteginæ and ossicles of Asteroidea. There can, I believe, be little doubt that these fragments have no connexion whatever with any of the existent formations of the islands. (Geol. Mag. vol. iii. p. 152.)
9. Annals & Mag. Nat. Hist. vol. xiv. (3rd Series), & Geol. Mag. 1864.
10. Author's 'Notes of a Naturalist in the Nile Valley and Malta,' p. 266. The Maltese Miocene Mollusca were first named by the late Professor Edward Forbes: see Proceedings Geol. Soc. vol. iv. pp. 230 & 231.
11. Author, op. cit. p. 129; Forbes, Proc. Geol. Soc. iv. p. 230.
12. Op. cit. p. 138.
13. Geol. Mag. vol. i. p. 104, and vol. iii. p. 152.
14. Berichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich, lxx. p. 92.
15. Op. cit. p. 474.
16. Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 3, vol. xiv. p. 5.
17. Geologist, 1862, p. 446, pl. 24. f. 19.
18. The matrix corresponded with the locality pointed out. In the case of fig. 5, Mr. Wright examined the cutting made with a knife in the rock to extract the specimen.
19. Notes of a Naturalist, p. 269.
20. Vana Speculazione, Tab. i.-iii.: Naples, 1670.
21. Proc. Geol. Soc. London, vol. iv. p. 230.
22. Op. cit. p. 134.
23. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxii. p. 595.
24. Notes of a Naturalist in the Nile Valley and Malta, p. 268.
25. Palæontological Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 304.
26. Professor Owen, as far back as 1843, recognized bones, "apparently of a Manatee," in Admiral Spratt's collections from the Sand bed (Proc. Geol. Soc. London, vol. iv. p. 230).
27. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxii. p. 598; also 'Notes of a Naturalist in the Nile Valley,' p. 265, where I have erroneously included the Manatee and Dugong besides the Halitherium.
28. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxvii. p. 29.
29. Ibid. p. 30.
30. Nearly all the Maltese Sharks were long since determined, more or less exactly, by Sir Philip Grey Egerton, Proc. Geol. Soc. vol. iv. p. 230.
31. Boisgelin's 'Malta,' p. 33.
32. Op. cit. p. 139.
33. Vana Speculazione, plate 2.