Dr. H. Burmcistci' on Glyptodon and its Allies. 301 



tail being somewhat intermediate between -the two Frencli 

 figures. 



The raesocervical bone of four united vertcbraj was figured and 

 briefly described as containing from the second to the fifth ver- 

 tebra, by Lund in the Transactions of the Academy of Copen- 

 hagen, where the author names the animal to which this bone 

 belonged Hoplophorus euphradus. The genus Schistopleurum 

 must therefore be named Hoplophorus, the two genera being 

 perfectly identical, and Dr. Lund's name the older one. His 

 other figures of the same animal prove its identity with Schisto- 

 pleurum as completely as that of the mcsocervical bone. 



As regards the fourth mcsocervical bone, with five united ver- 

 tebra, I do not know exactly the species to which it belongs ; but 

 from the general construction of the bone I am inclined to think 

 that it may belong to Glyptodon clavipes, Owen. We have of 

 this species a caraj)acc not so well preserved as that figured by 

 Owen,awell-preserved pelvis,and some other bones. Somemonths 

 ago I communicated to Professor Owen figures of this pelvis and 

 of the pelvis of Schistopleurum gemmatum, then named by me 

 Glyptodon lavis, as also of ray G. spinicaudus, now to be named 

 Hoplophorus aspcr, in order to show him the great differences in 

 the construction of the pelvis in these three species. The pelvis 

 of G. clavipes is the strongest — the branch of the os pubis, 

 which forms the superior boundary of the foramen obturatorium, 

 especially being much thicker than in the other two species, in 

 which it is as thin as a pencil and much longer, and the foramen 

 obturatorium is much larger. As all these characters of the 

 pelvis in G. clavipes indicate a stronger and more solid construc- 

 tion of the skeleton, I think we are justified in believing that the 

 construction of the neck in this species was also stronger than 

 in the others. 



The same character of strength, but still more strongly marked, 

 is presented by a pelvis of which I have only one side before me. 

 This pelvis is more than one-half larger than that of G. clavipes, 

 has the same strong pubic branch, and a much narrower foramen 

 obturatorium. From the construction of the bone, as well as from 

 the general size of the animal, I conclude that the pelvis belongs 

 to a very large species, of which we have in the Museum the 

 complete tip of the tail. This was described by me in my first 

 memoir as belonging to G. tuber culatus, Owen ; but having since 

 seen this author's figures copied in Nodot's work (pi. 9), I find 

 that this was a mistake, and that this tail is identical with that 

 figured by Nodot, pi. 8. figs. 3-.5, copied from the ' Osteographie.' 

 Nodot has described, but not named, the species as belonging to 

 two different kinds (pp. 102 & 103). He also gives (p. 100) a 

 short description of two scales, figured (pi. VZ. figs, 6 & 7) as G. 



