132 On Mastodonioid and Megatherwid Animals. 



the same views as Professor Owen concerning the osteology 

 and generic characters of the Mastodon founded upon the com- 

 parison of a series of bones and teeth belonging to the Masto- 

 don longirostris, more numerous and complete than even those 

 of the Mastodon giganteus. 



Mylodon. — One of the most brilliant, and, I venture to say, 

 not the least durable of the researches in palaeontology, re- 

 mains to be mentioned in the description of the Mylodon ro- 

 bustus, a new species of gigantic edentate animal, accompanied 

 by observations on the affinities and habits of all Megathe- 

 rioid animals. After a sketch of the labours of Cuvier, who 

 first described the huge Megatherium and pointed out its ana- 

 logy to the family of Sloths and Armadillos, of the succeeding 

 writings of Jefferson and Harlan upon the genus Megalonyx, 

 of Dr Lund on the Coelodon and Sphenodon of Brazil, and of 

 his own researches which established the Mylodon and Sceli- 

 dotherium, Professor Owen proceeds to describe the mega- 

 therioid animal which he has named Mylodon robustus. 



Of the purely anatomical descriptions, it is not my province 

 to speak, and referring you to the work in which, through the 

 enlightened munificence of the College of Surgeons, all the 

 necessary illustrations have appeared, I pass to the generali- 

 zations, and learn that the Mylodon, in common with the 

 Megatherium and Megalonyx, are genera of the family of 

 Gravigrada^ as distinguished from the Tardigrada in the or- 

 der Bruta. 



Professor Owen then proceeds to a comparison of the ana- 

 tomy of the Mylodon with that of all analogous creatures, and 

 after an able analysis, he satisfies himself, and also, I am per- 

 suaded, every one who has followed his close reasoning, that 

 he has at length ascertained the true habits and food of this 

 family of mammifers. From their dentition, it is inferred that 

 the Megatherium and Mylodon must have been phyllopha- 

 gous, or leaf-eating animals ; whilst, from their short necks, 

 the very opposite extreme to the camelopard, they never could 

 have reached the tops of even the lowest trees. Cuvier, on 

 the contrary, suggested that they were fossorial, or digging ani- 

 mals ; and we all recollect the animated manner in which Dr 



