THE BRAIN IN THE EDENTATA. 285 



There is much in this important memoir which calls for criticism, but at present I will 

 merely take cognizance of the references to Jlau/'s. In a future memoir I sluili discuss 

 some of the statements in reference to the Monotremata and Marsupialia, as well as 

 some of the more general questions, the consideration of which is precluded here by 

 limitations of space. 



Several investigators have recorded the weight of the brain in various Edentates, the 

 most noteworthy contribution to this suliject being Max Weber's monograpii (Jam. cit. 

 p. 282). 



If we sum up this literature we find tliat, apart from observations upon the general 

 form and size of the brain, it contains little information of sufficient exactness to be 

 of value to the comparative anatomist. Almost the whole of the data collected in the 

 memoirs concern the cerelnul cortex, and even with regard to this important region of 

 the brain we are provided with only the most meagre information, often very vaguely 

 expressed. Almost all writers are silent concerning the basal regions of the brain, 

 which are of especial interest in the lowlier mammals. 



Heviewing the literature of the different families, we find that nothing is known of the 

 adult brain of Orycteropus, except such information as the examination of cranial casts 

 has provided. The brief notes of Pouchet and Gervais upon the brain of a foetal 

 Orycteropus add little, if anything, to our knowledge. 



Concerning the Myrmecopliayidce, we have, in the recent memoir of Forbes and the 

 earlier contribution of Gervais, a very good account of the cerebral hemisphere of 

 MyrmecopJiaga, although the base of the hemisphere and the rest of the brain receive 

 very scanty treatment. 



Practically nothing beyond the brief and imperfect notes and unsatisfactory figures of 

 Pouchet has hitherto been made known of the brain of Tamandua. 



Por our knoAvledge of Ci/cloturm \yq are indebted mainly to Pouchet and the early 

 memoir of Tiedemann. 



The knowledge of the brain in the Sloths is even more unsatisfactory, as no minute 

 description has yet been given of the brain in either Brudi/pus or CJioloepus. 



Gervais' beautiful figures of cranial casts in these two orders have made us familiar 

 with the exact sliape and size of the brain, and the series of figures of Pouchet and the 

 more recent contriljution of Turner have given us a much fuller view of the brain in 

 this order than the earlier works of Tiedemann and Rapp conveyed. But even now 

 our knowledge of the brain in this family is very deficient, and I am able to supply 

 the required information only very imperfectly. 



I have endeavoured to supplement and discuss as a whole the data concerning the 

 Armadillos, for which we are mainly indebted to the memoirs of Turner, Pouchet, and 

 Garrod, and which relate to all the genera except Priodon, our only knowledge of which 

 is derived from the figure of a cranial cast, which Gervais has contributed. 



The interesting brain of ChlamdyopJioriis, concerning which Hyrtl published a few 

 notes, which were supplemented by a fuller descri^jtion by Pouchet, has been carefully 

 studied in a series of sections stained with carmine. This has enabled me to srive 



SECOND SERIES. — ZOOLOGY, VOL. VII. 4-0 



