Chapter XXVI: Appendix: A (2)

The original situation of the piece of skin being thus determined, it is interesting to observe the disposition of the ossicles in the lower layer. Owing to abrasion, contraction, and partial disintegration, they are conspicuous in most parts of the specimen. They are very irregular in shape and size, and closely compacted together, as in the previous specimen. It is, however, to be noted that in some parts there is a distinct tendency to arrangement in regular, straight, parallel rows. The long axes of the elongated ossicles are nearly always coincident with the direction of these rows. They are especially well shown on the middle of the flank; and, as might be expected, the rows are here disposed vertically, parallel with the ribs.

In some parts of the skin the ossicles are exposed on their outer face; but appearances render it almost certain that this exposure is due to the disintegration and abrasion of the specimen. In one patch thus uncovered by the removal of the soft parts, the ossicles are seen to form a closely arranged, flattened pavement; and their outer face is much more conspicuously marked by pittings than that of any ossicle extracted from the first discovered piece of skin. In fact, as Roth remarks, the pitting is here quite similar to that observable on many ossicles dug up in association with the fossil skeletons of _Mylodon_; though it does not form so regular a reticulate pattern as that of the dermal ossicles of _Mylodon_ in the British Museum figured on the former occasion.[50]

Another interesting feature of the new piece of skin consists in the dwindling and even total absence of the ossicles towards the ventral border. A section along the edge exhibits only two diminutive nodules of bone in a length of 0.1 m.; while another similar section taken vertically from the skin of the limb shows no trace of ossicles, except perhaps two little specks. It must, however, be noted that the limb was not entirely destitute of armour; for on the border the bones are as well developed and conspicuous as on the middle of the flank. In the newly-cut sections the skin has a translucent aspect, showing that it is merely dried and not tanned in any way.

The hair on the new specimen varies in length from 0.07 m. or 0.10 m. to 0.15 m. or 0.22 m. It is thus longer than that of the previous piece of skin. Masses of still longer hairs--some 0.30 m. in length--were found detached among the excrement, and these are also believed by Roth to belong to the same animal. His determination is probably correct; for, when examined microscopically, these long hairs are observed to have a perfectly smooth cuticle, while some transverse sections (kindly made by Mr. R. H. Burne) demonstrate the complete absence of a medulla, exactly as in the short hairs. The latter feature proves that they cannot be referred either to the horse or to the guanaco.

_Excrement._

The large cylindrical pieces of excrement, which may be referred to _Grypotherium_ without any hesitation, have already been described and figured by Dr. Roth. They consist of irregular discoids of herbaceous matter closely pressed together, the largest measuring no less than 0.18 m. in diameter. Mr. Spencer Moore has kindly examined them from the botanist's point of view and reports that they are composed "in large part apparently of grasses, as the haulms, leaf-sheaths, fragments of leaves, &c., of these plants are frequent in the mass. A spikelet, almost entire, of what seems to be a species of _Poa_, and the flowering glume of another grass, probably avenaceous, have also been found. Besides these there are at least two dicotyledonous plants, one herbaceous and the other almost certainly so, the latter having a slender greatly sclerotised stem. Unfortunately, as no leaves have hitherto been observed attached to the fragments of stem, their affinities are altogether doubtful. There are numerous silicious particles in the excrement, and there are many pieces of the underground parts of the plants, suggesting that they have been pulled out of the ground. A few pieces of stems are sharply cut, not bruised or torn at the end." The latter fact is especially important in connection with Dr. Hauthal's discovery of cut hay in the cavern, and his theory that the _Grypotherium_ was kept in captivity and fed by man.

_Generic and Specific Determination._

The fortunate discovery of all parts of the skull and dentition renders the generic determination of this Ground-Sloth now quite certain. The teeth show that it belongs to the family Mylodontidæ; the presence of only four instead of five upper molars separates it from the genera _Mylodon_, _Lestodon_, and _Scelidotherium_; the forward production of the nasals and the ossification of part of the internarial septum place it definitely in the allied genus _Grypotherium_, as originally diagnosed by Reinhardt. The only question needing consideration is, whether the fragment of cranium described by Owen in 1840 as the type of the genus _Glossotherium_[51] is really identical with that subsequently described by Reinhardt under the name of _Grypotherium darwini_, as now seems to be commonly believed.

Darwin's original specimen, on which the genus _Glossotherium_ of Owen was founded, is preserved in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. It has thus been possible to compare it directly with the undoubted cranium of _Grypotherium_ from the Patagonian cavern. The specimen is merely the left half of the hinder part of the cranium, and is therefore very inadequate for discussion; but several features seem worthy of note. Compared with the new skull No. 1, the fragment named _Glossotherium_ has (i.) the inner wall of the temporal fossa less flattened, (ii.) the digastric fossa deeper in proportion to its width, (iii.) the hinder border of the inflated pterygoid vertical, instead of sloping downwards and forwards, (iv.) a much larger and deeper pit for the articulation of the stylohyal, and (v.) a longer canal penetrating the base of the occipital condyle for the passage of the hypoglossal nerve. In all these respects the so-called _Glossotherium_ agrees much more closely with the typical _Mylodon_; and Owen was probably correct in 1842 when he expressed the opinion that the two are at least generically identical.[52]

I am therefore of opinion that _Grypotherium_ is the correct generic name for the Ground-Sloth from the Patagonian cavern, while _Glossotherium_ must be relegated to the synonymy of _Mylodon_.

The specific determination of the new specimens is more difficult. As remarked by Roth, only two species of _Grypotherium_ seem to be already known from the Pampa formation--_G. darwini_ by three skulls[53] and _G. bonaerense_ solely by a maxilla.[54] The portions of skull and dentition now under discussion indicate an animal much larger than _G. bonaerense_ (assuming the original maxilla to be that of an adult); while they are considerably smaller than any known specimen of _G. darwini_. Moreover, the nasal arcade now described is narrower and more concave on its outer face than that of _G. darwini_, as already observed by Roth. It thus seems very probable that the animal from the Patagonian cavern represents a distinct species, which must bear the name of _G. listai_. This specific name was given by Ameghino to a fragment of the first-discovered piece of skin, and the curious argument which leads Roth to propose the substitution of a new name for it does not affect its validity.

It may be added that Dr. Erland Nordenskjöld has recently compared his specimens from the Patagonian cavern with the skull of _Grypotherium darwini_ at Copenhagen, and finds no specific difference.[55] No particulars however, have yet been published.

2. ASSOCIATED MAMMALIAN REMAINS.

_Felis_, sp.

A feline carnivore larger than the existing Jaguar (_Felis onca_), but about the same size as an average Tiger (_F. tigris_), is represented in the collection by the distal half of a right humerus (No. 44), a left fourth metatarsal (No. 46), and the distal end of another metatarsal (No. 47). These bones have evidently been buried in dust, but are in the same fresh state of preservation as those of _Grypotherium_.

Careful comparison of these bones shows that they are undoubtedly feline; and there is no difficulty in determining that they belong to _Felis_ rather than to the extinct _Machærodus_. A humerus of _M. neogæus_, from a Brazilian cavern, now in the British Museum (No. 18972 _b_), is readily distinguished from the new Patagonian humerus by the remarkable lateral compression of its shaft and the much greater downward extension of its prominent and sharp deltoid ridge. The humerus in all the large species of _Felis_, on the other hand, only differs from the fossil now under discussion in very small particulars. In fact, the humerus and metatarsals of the existing _Felis onca_ are essentially identical with the bones from the Patagonian cavern, except that they are rather smaller. I am therefore inclined to regard the newly discovered remains as indicating a comparatively large variety of _F. onca_, which once lived in the temperate regions of Patagonia, beyond the present range of this species. Such an occurrence would be a precise parallel to that of the Cave-Lion in Europe. It is well known that nearly all the remains of _F. leo_ found in the Pleistocene formations of the temperate parts of the Old World indicate animals of somewhat larger size than any surviving in the warmer regions to which the species is now confined.[56]

It may be noted that bones of the Jaguar of ordinary dimensions have been recorded from the Pampa formation of the Province of Buenos Aires.[57]

_Arctotherium_, sp.

With the bones of _Felis_ just noticed, Roth provisionally associates the imperfect distal end of a remarkably large right femur. He is thus induced to suppose that the carnivore represented by the fragments will prove to be a new genus and species of the Felidæ. He suggests for it the name of _Iemisch listai_, on the assumption that it is the mysterious quadruped which Ameghino states is known to the natives as the Iemisch.

A comparison of the distal end of the femur in question with the femora of Felidæ in the British Museum seems to prove conclusively that it cannot be referred even to the same family. Its width across the condyles is much greater, compared with its antero-posterior diameter, than that observed in any feline. Moreover, the pit for the tendon of the popliteus muscle below the external condyle is unusually deep. In both these respects the bone closely resembles the distal end of the femur of a Bear. I have been therefore led to compare it with the corresponding part of the extinct Bear of the Pampean formation, _Arctotherium_.

Fortunately, the fine and nearly complete skeleton of _Arctotherium bonaerense_ in the Bravard Collection in the British Museum comprises the right femur and enables direct comparison to be made. The fragment lacks the inner condyle; but enough of the trochlea remains to show its broad and gently-rounded form, with a wide and deep intertrochlear notch, precisely as in _Arctotherium_. It has the same development of the external condyle as in the latter, while the fossa for the popliteal tendon is equally deep, only slightly differing in shape. In fact, there is very little discrepancy, except in its smaller size; and species of _Arctotherium_ smaller than _A. bonaerense_ are already known both from the Pampa formation of Argentina[58] and the caverns of Brazil.[59]

The fragment just described has evidently been severed from the rest of the bone by a sharp, clean cut made by man; and Dr. Hauthal is quite certain that this was not done by one of his workmen during excavation (_op. cit._ p. 59). At least one medium-sized species of _Arctotherium_ must therefore have survived until the human period in Southern Patagonia.[60]

_Onohippidium saldiasi._

A horse is represented in the collection by an upper molar, a fragment of premaxilla with two incisors, an imperfect atlas and two well-preserved hoofs apparently of a fœtus or perhaps of a newly-born animal. Of these remains only the upper molar is capable of satisfactory determination.

This tooth is the second upper molar of the left side, and has been exhaustively compared with corresponding teeth by Dr. Roth, who gives a good series of figures. It is readily distinguished from the homologous molar in the genus _Equus_ by the peculiar form of its two inner columns--a fact which I have been able to verify by the examination of an extensive series of specimens, both recent and fossil, in the British Museum. Further comparison, indeed, shows that it must be referred to the extinct Pampean genus _Onohippidium_.[61] Roth assigns it, apparently quite rightly, to the same species as a maxilla from the Pampean formation of the Province of Buenos Aires, for which he proposes the name of _Onohippidium saldiasi_.

_Large Extinct Rodent._

The proximal end of the femur of a large rodent has already been recognised by Roth, and compared with the extinct _Megamys_. It cannot be more exactly determined.

_Existing Species._

One imperfect fragment of pelvis and sacrum seems to belong to a puma (_Felis concolor_) of rather large size; but it is not sufficient for precise determination.

The small mandibular ramus of a musteline referred by Dr. Roth to _Mephitis suffocans_, does not pertain to this genus and species. Mr. Oldfield Thomas determines it to belong to the rare _Lyncodon patagonicus_, which still lives in Patagonia and has not hitherto been found fossil. A slightly larger extinct species of the same genus has been described by Ameghino on the evidence of a skull from the Pampean formation near Lujan, in the Province of Buenos Aires.[62]

A cranium, some vertebræ, and a tibia and fibula appear to represent the existing _Ctenomys magellanicus_, as noted by Roth.

The remains of the Guanaco (_Lama huanacos_) do not present any features worthy of special remark.

Man is represented by a diseased scapula and by two bone awls, which are clearly made from the tibia of a species of _Canis_ intermediate in size between _C. jubatus_ and _C. magellanicus_.

3. RELATIVE AGE OF THE REMAINS.

As the result of Dr. Roth's researches, supplemented by the additional observations now recorded, it is evident that the majority of the mammalian remains from the cavern near Last Hope Inlet belong to the extinct fauna which occurs in the Pampean formation of more northern regions. To this category are referable the genera _Grypotherium_, _Onohippidium_, _Megamys_, and _Arctotherium_; also _Macrauchenia_, which is said to have been discovered in the same deposit on the floor of the cave by Dr. E. Nordenskjöld. The large _Felis_ likewise probably belongs to the same series. Remains of mammals of the existing fauna, on the other hand, are comparatively few and insignificant, referable to the genera _Ctenomys_, _Cervus_, _Lama_, _Lyncodon_, and _Felis_.

Although Dr. Hauthal's explorations were rather hurried and Dr. Nordenskjöld's results have only been published hitherto in abstract,[63] their account of the deposits on the floor of the cavern seem to confirm the suspicion that the remains of these two faunas were introduced at two successive periods. According to Hauthal, the remains of the Guanaco were found along with fragmentary bones of Deer, shells of _Mytilus chorus_, branches of trees, and dried leaves, in the superficial dust of the cavern near the outer wall. The skin of _Grypotherium_ and all the other remains of this and the associated Pampean genera were discovered in the deeper layer of excrement and cut hay between the mound and the inner wall of the cavern. According to Nordenskjöld, three distinct strata can be recognised on the floor of the cavern as follows:

A. A thin surface layer, containing ashes, shells, and
bones of recent animals broken by man.

B. A middle layer, containing numerous branches of trees
and dried leaves, with remains of _Lama_ and the extinct
horse, _Onohippidium_. Said to be probably the stratum in
which the original piece of skin was found.

C. A bottom layer, usually about a metre in thickness,
without any traces of branches or leaves, but only dried
herbs. Remains of _Grypotherium_ numerous and confined to
this stratum, associated with its excrement and hair, also
with remains of a large variety of _Felis onca_,
_Macrauchenia_, and _Onohippidium_.

It is unfortunate that the question of the contemporaneity of the various bones cannot be tested by the ingenious method of chemical analysis which has been applied with success to similar problems by M. Adolphe Carnot in France. The French chemist has shown that when bones are buried in ordinary sediments they undergo changes which gradually cause the percentage of contained fluorine to increase. According to him, the longer a bone has been buried, the greater is the percentage of fluorine found in it on analysis. In one case[64] he examined the scapula of a deer and a human tibia, discovered together in fluviatile sand near Billancourt (Seine); he found that the former had seven or eight times its usual percentage of fluorine, while the human bone did not differ in any respect from the normal in this constituent. He therefore concluded that the latter bone was not of the same age as the former, but had been introduced comparatively recently by burial. In this and the other recorded cases, however, it is to be observed that the sediment was of a uniform character and admitted of free percolation of water. In the Patagonian cavern, on the contrary, the bones occur partly in dust, partly in dried herbage, partly in dried excrement, and partly in the burnt residue of the same. Moreover, they must always have been subjected to intense dryness, and the usual process of chemical alteration cannot have taken place.

Considering all circumstances, I think that, even without chemical evidence, zoologists and geologists cannot fail now to agree with Dr. Moreno and his colleagues of the La Plata Museum, that the remarkably preserved _Grypotherium_ from the Patagonian cavern belongs to the extinct Pampean fauna of South America, and need not be searched for in the unexplored wilds of that continent. If we accept the confirmatory evidence afforded by Mr. Spencer Moore, we can also hardly refuse to believe that this great Ground-Sloth was actually kept and fed by an early race of man.

IV. NOTE CONCERNING TEHUELCHE LEGENDS.

By HESKETH PRICHARD.

I now proceed to give the testimony of Dr. F. Ameghino, whose brother Carlos was well acquainted with the country and who early gave it as his opinion that the animal, which is named the _Neomylodon listai_, was still living in Patagonia. In support of his opinion he adduced tales which Carlos Ameghino had gathered from the Indians, who roam the pampas, of a vast mysterious beast said by them to haunt the distant lagoons and forests of the unexplored regions near the Andes. These stories had, moreover, been confirmed in Dr. Ameghino's opinion by the experience of the late well-known geographer and traveller, Señor Ramon Lista, who verbally told both Dr. Ameghino and his brother that he had seen and fired at a mysterious creature, which, however, disappeared in the brushwood and could not afterwards be traced. He described it as being covered with reddish-grey hair, and he believed it to be a pangolin or scaly-anteater.[65] Taking all things into consideration, Dr. Ameghino announced his conviction that the mysterious animal referred to was the last representative of a group, long believed extinct, related to the Mylodon.

According to Dr. Ameghino the Indians had bestowed upon the mysterious animal the name of Iemisch. Nothing would induce them to penetrate into the supposed haunts of this monster. It was described as amphibious, equally at home on land or in the water; in remote mountain recesses it lurked in caves, or had its lairs by the shores of lonely lagoons and rivers, or at times lay in wait among the lower passes of the Cordillera. In habits it was nocturnal, and its strength so great that it could seize a horse in its claws, and hold itself down to the bottoms of the lakes! The head was supposed to be short and without external ears, but showing enormous dog-teeth: the feet short and bear-like, armed with formidable claws united by a swimming membrane; the long tail, tapering and prehensile, the hair hard and of a uniform yellowish-brown. In size it far exceeded any creature they knew of, its legs, though short, being almost as great in girth as its body. It followed, naturally that narratives of personal experiences and encounters with this terrific animal were varied.

These data, it must be confessed, were bewildering. In fact, as described by the Indians the Iemisch was scientifically absurd; but the Indian is like a child in many ways and would naturally endow a creature he feared with extraordinary attributes.

I will quote here an extract from Winwood Reade's "Savage Africa," one of the finest books of travel ever written.

"It must be laid down as a general principle that man can originate nothing; that lies are always truths embellished, distorted, or turned inside out. There are other facts beside those which lie on the surface, and it is the duty of the traveller and the historian to sift and wash the gold-grains of truth from the dirt of fable.... It is true that some of the ancient myths have been sobered down to natural beings. The men with dogs' heads of whom Herodotus speaks are the barking baboons which I saw in Senegal: the men with their head under their shoulders, their eyes in their breast, are the ill-formed negroes, whose shoulders are shrugged up, and whose heads drop on their breasts: the mermaids of the Arab tales are the sea-cows of the African rivers, which have feminine dugs and a face almost human in expression: the huge serpent which opposed the army of Regulus is now well known as the python: the burning mountains which Hanno saw, and the sounds of the lutes which were believed to proceed from the strife of the elements, are only caused by the poor negroes burning the grass of their hill-tops: the music being that of their flutes, as I have heard it often in those long and silent African nights far away.

"Incredulity has now become so vulgar a folly, that one is almost tempted, out of simple hatred for a fashion, to run into the opposite extreme. However, I shall content myself with citing evidence respecting certain unknown, fabulous and monstrous animals of Africa, without committing myself to an opinion one way or the other; preserving only my conviction that there is always a basis of truth to the most fantastic fables, and that, by rejecting without inquiry that which appears incredible, one throws away ore in which others might have found a jewel. A traveller should believe nothing, for he will find himself so often deceived: and he should disbelieve nothing, for he will see so many wonderful things; he should doubt, he should investigate, and then, perhaps, he may discover."

It was in this spirit that I set out for the interior of Patagonia. Although the legends of the Indians were manifestly to a large extent the result of imaginative exaggeration, yet I hoped to find a substratum of fact below these fancies. After thorough examination, however, I am obliged to say that I found none. The Indians not only never enter the Cordillera but avoid the very neighbourhood of the mountains. The rumours of the Iemisch and the stories concerning it, which, in print, had assumed a fairly definite form, I found nebulous in the extreme when investigated on the spot.

Finally, after much investigation I came to the conclusion that the Indian legends in all probability refer to some large species of otter. Musters, in his book "At Home with the Patagonians," makes mention of an animal much feared by the tribe with whom he travelled, which they called "water-tiger," and which they said lived in a rapid and deep river near to Nahuel-huapi, a lake the name of which lends colour to the tale, for it means Tigers' Island. Musters says he himself saw two ostriches, that, being considered in too poor a condition to be worth taking to camp for food, were left on the bank of the river referred to, torn and partly devoured when on the following day he and his party revisited the spot. Tracks of an animal were also plainly visible leading down into the water.

Compare this with a story told me by Mr. Von Plaaten Hallermund. He described the case of a mule which had fallen over a precipice in the vicinity of the River Deseado. When on the following day the _peones_ climbed down to salve its cargo, they found the animal on the edge of the water half eaten, and in its neighbourhood were tracks strange to them. "Like those of a puma, yet not those of a puma," as they said.

The manager of Messrs. Braun and Blanchard's store at Santa Cruz gave me a description of a skin brought in by Indians which, though not a puma-skin, was quite as large as the skin of the common silver-grey puma generally is. I myself saw a very large otter in the River Senguerr, but unluckily had not my rifle with me, and although I returned as quickly with it as I could, all trace of the otter had vanished.

Taking into consideration the amphibious nature attributed by the Indians to the Iemisch, there seems to be little reason to doubt that the real animal underlying the rumours of a mysterious monster is a sub-species of the large Brazilian otter (_Lutra brasiliensis_).

To return to the possible survival of the Mylodon, as far as our travels led us both north and south on the eastern side of the Cordillera, we could discover no trace whatever either by hearsay or from the evidence of our own experience to warrant the supposition that it continues to exist to the present day. But there are hundreds of square miles of dense forest still unexplored along the whole length of the Patagonian Andes, and I do not undertake to declare positively that no such animal exists in some unknown and hidden spot among their recesses. Roughly speaking, there are many thousand square miles of snowy summits, ravines, high plateaus and valleys in this region. The task of finding a final answer to the Mylodon problem on the drag-net principle of passing to and fro throughout the whole district would be so gigantic and prolonged where the natural difficulties are great, as to be practically impossible. Such an answer must be left to time and the slow process of things. In the meanwhile I can merely state my own conviction that the odds are very heavily against the chances of such a survival. The probable habitat of the Mylodon would naturally be the forests. I penetrated these in more than one direction, and one of the most striking characteristics of the forests was the absence of animal life, evidence of which grew less and less the farther we forced our way into their depths. It is a matter of common knowledge that, where the larger forms of life are to be found, there also a liberal catalogue of lesser creatures co-exist. The conditions which favour the life of the greater favour also the existence of the less. This is presumptive evidence only, and though it has certainly influenced my own conclusions, I do not wish to force it upon others. I have stated the case as fairly as I can, and I leave my readers to form their own opinions.

FOOTNOTES:

[33] F. Ameghino, "Première Notice sur le _Neomylodon listai_, un Représentant vivant des anciens Edentés Gravigrades fossiles de l'Argentina" (La Plata, August 1898); translated under the title "An Existing Ground-Sloth in Patagonia," in "Natural Science," vol. xiii (1898), pp. 324-326.

[34] A. Milne-Edwards, "Note sur une nouvelle Espèce de Tatou à cuirasse incomplète (_Scleropleura bruneti_)," Nouv. Arch. Mus., vol. vii. (1871), pp. 177-179, pl. xii.

[35] P. W. Lund, K. Dansk. Vidensk. Selsk. Afhandl., vol. viii. (1841), p. 85 (footnote).

[36] H. Burmeister, Anales Mus. Publico Buenos Aires, vol. i. (1864-69), p. 173, pl. v. Fig. 8.

[37] Flower and Lydekker, "Introduction to the Study of Mammals," p. 183.

[38] E. Lönnberg, "On some Remains of '_Neomylodon listai_," Ameghino, brought home by the Swedish Expedition to Tierra del Fuego, 1895-1897, Wissensch. Ergebn. schwedisch. Exped. Magellansländ, unter Leitung v. Otto Nordenskjöld, vol. ii. pp. 149-170, pls. xii.-xiv. (1899).

[39] "On some Remains of _Grypotherium (Neomylodon) listai_ and associated Mammals from a Cavern near Consuelo Cove, Last Hope Inlet, Patagonia." _Proc. Zool. Soc._, 1900, pp. 64-79, pls. v.-ix.

[40] R. Hauthal, S. Roth, and R. Lehmann-Nitsche, "El Mamifero Misterioso de la Patagonia, _Grypotherium domesticum_," Revista Mus. La Plata, vol. ix. pp. 409-474, pls. i.-v. (1899).--F. P. Moreno, "Note on the Discovery of _Miolania_ and of _Glossotherium (Neomylodon)_ in Patagonia," Geol. Mag. [4] vol. vi. pp. 385-388 (1899).

[41] J. Reinhardt, "Beskrivelse af Hovedskallen af et Kæmpedovendyr, _Grypotherium darwinii_, fra La Plata-Landenes plejstocene-Dannelser," K. Dansk. Vidensk. Selsk Skr. [5] vol. xii. (1879), pp. 353-380, pls. i. ii.--H. Burmeister, "Atlas de la Description physique de la République Argentine," sect. ii. (1881), p. 119, woodc. (_Mylodon darwinii_),--R. Lydekker, "The Extinct Edentates of Argentina," Anales Mus. La Plata--Paleont. Argentina, vol. iii. pt. 2 (1894), p. 85, pl. liv.

[42] R. Hauthal, _op. cit._ p. 4.

[43] See S. Roth, _op. cit._ pl. ii. Fig. 1.

[44] R. Lydekker, Anales Mus. La Plata--Paleont. Argentina, vol. iii. pt. 2 (1894), p. 73, pl. xlv. Fig. 1.

[45] R. Owen, "Description of the Skeleton of an Extinct Gigantic Sloth, _Mylodon robustus_, Owen" (1842), p. 18.

[46] P. Gervais, "Mémoire sur les Formes Cérébrales propres aux Édentés vivants et fossiles," _Nouv. Arch. Mus._, vol. xv. (1869), p. 39, pl. iv. Figs. 1, 2.

[47] P. Gervais, _loc. cit._ p. 39, pl. v.

[48] _Ibid._ p. 38, pl. iv. Figs. 3, 4.

[49] J. Hyrtl, "Vergleichendanatomische Untersuchungen über das innere Gehörorgan des Menschen und der Säugethiere" (1845), p. 135, pl. v. Fig. 6.

[50] _P. Z. S._ 1899. pl. xv. Figs. 4-6.

[51] R. Owen, "The Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. _Beagle_.--Part I. Fossil Mammalia" (1840), p. 57, pl. xvi.

[52] R. Owen, "Description of the Skeleton of an Extinct Gigantic Sloth, _Mylodon robustus_, Owen" (1842), p. 154, foot-note.

[53] Described respectively by Reinhardt, Burmeister, and Lydekker, _loc. cit._

[54] F. Ameghino, "Contribucion al Conocimiento de los Mamiferos de la Republica Argentina" (1889), p. 738, pl. xliv. Fig. 8.

[55] E. Nordenskjöld, "La Grotte du _Glossotherium_ (_Neomylodon_) en Patagonie," Comptes Rendus, vol. cxxix. (1899), p. 1217.

[56] Dawkins and Sanford, "The British Pleistocene Mammalia" (Palæont. Soc., 1869), p. 150.

[57] F. Ameghino, "Contribucion al Conocimiento de los Mamiferos de la Republica Argentina" (1889), p. 342.

[58] F. Ameghino, _op. cit._ (1889), p. 317.

[59] H. Winge, "Jordfundne og nulevende Rovdyr (Carnivora) fra Lagoa Santa, Minas Geraes, Brasilien" (E. Museo Lundii, 1895), p. 31.

[60] Dr. Moreno has lately received reports of bear-like tracks in remote parts of the Cordillera, which he thinks may imply that a species of _Arctotherium_ still lives in Patagonia.

[61] F. P. Moreno, "Revista Mus. La Plata," vol. ii. (1891). p. 56, R. Lydekker, "Anales Mus. La Plata--Paleont. Argentina," vol. ii. pt. 3 (1893), p. 77. pl. xxix.

[62] F. Ameghino, _op. cit._ (1889), p. 324.

[63] E. Nordenskjöld, "La Grotte du _Glossotherium_ (_Neomylodon_ )en Patagonie" Comptes Rendus, vol. cxxix. (1899), pp. 1216, 1217.

[64] A. Carnot, "Sur une Application de l'Analyse chimique pour fixer l'Age d'Ossements humains préhistoriques," Comptes Rendus, vol. cxv. (1892), pp. 337-339.

[65] Pangolins, armadillos, and sloths are more or less related.