+ ‘ * ee 
* ) Dr. J. Wyman on Fossil Bones from Memphis, Tenn. 59 
( ‘This tooth resembles that of M. Jeffersonii, figured by Cuvier in 
“% the Ossemens Fossiles, in the existence of the lateral ridge, but in 
__ * its proportions does not materially differ from that of M. laqueatus, 
: 
Harlan, described and figured in his Med. and Phys. Researches. 
No. 4. An ungueal phalanx of Megalonyrs—This is imper- 
fect.and was from a young animal, as is indicated by the fact the 
epiphysis forming the articulating surface was not céossified with 
the body of the bone, and has been detached. (Fig. 3.) Its general 
resemblance to the corresponding part of one of the Carnivora is 
sufficiently strong to render excusable the error of President Jef- 
erson, who referred some remains of Megalonyx to this group of 
animals. 
. 
3. 
Ungueal phalanx of Megalonyx. Two-thirds natural size. 
An ungueal phalanx of Megalonyx is distinguished from that 
of either Mylodon or Megatherium, by its greater lateral com- 
pression, by its more trenchant upper edge, as well as by the ab- 
Sence of a marked flattening or indentation of this last near the 
key It does not appear that the osteology of the foot of 
egalonyx has as yet been much more definitely made out than 
is its dentition. 
Je 
* 
a ec ec eee -_ 
Soc. Nat, Hist., vol. ii, pp. 60 and 140. Dr. Jackson has shown by actual examina- 
tion that the molar took described by Prof. Owen as replacing the first and second 
milk teeth, and developed in the jaw beneath them in Mastodon angustidens, does 
not exist in the Mastodon giganteum. 
* Owen's Memoir on the Mylodon, p. 106. 
