CERTAIN BONES, 5cc. 531 



metatarfal — The floth has but two phalanges in addition 

 to the fuppofed metacarpal hone, whereas the animal in 

 queftion had bone No. 2 and two phalanges belides. 

 The relative fize or proportions of the phalanges, muil 

 have differed greatly in the two animals, M. Daubenton 

 defcribes the firft phalanx as very long, and the la!!:, or 

 claw bone, as very Ihort, in the floth, but the reverie is 

 the cafe with thefe bones — There is however an unguis 

 defcribed by M. Daubenton which is particularly interefl:- 

 ing, it was prefented by M. De la Condamine as belong- 

 ing to a large fpecies of floth, and although not entire, its 

 length meallired round the convexity, was half a foot, 

 and its breadth, at the bafe, an inch and a half. 



We are naturally led to inquire whether thefe bones are 

 fimilar to thofe of the great Ikeleton found lately at Para- 

 guay, but for want of a good plate, or a full defcription 

 we are unable at prefent to decide upon that fubjedl — If 

 however any credit be due to the reprefentation given in 

 the Monthly Magazine for Sept. 1796 publifhed in Lon- 

 don, (the only plate I have feen) thefe bones could not 

 have belonged to a fkeleton of that animal — for according 

 to that reprefentation, the lower end of the ulna is much 

 larger, and articulated with a larger portion of the foot, 

 in the megatherium than in the megalonix — The upper 

 end of the radius alfo is much larger than the lower in that 

 figure, whereas the reverfe is the cafe with the megalonix, 

 and the difference in the claw bones is fl:ill greater, as will 

 appear to every one who compares the two. 



END OF THE FOURTH VOLUME. 



