HOLLAND AND PETERSON: OSTEOLOGY OF THE CHALICOTHEROIDEA. 379 
Recherches sur les Ossemens Fossiles, Tome V, Ire Partie, pp. 193-195. 3me Edition, 
1825. 
In this paper Cuvier describes the cast of an ungual phalanx found at Eppelsheim, 
Germany, and refers it unhesitatingly to the Edentata, pointing out its similarity to 
the claw of Orycteropus. 
1833. 
Kaur, JOHANN JAKOB—‘ Ossemens Fossiles de Darmstadt,” 2me Livraison, p. 6, Pl. 7. 
The author gives the name Chalicothervum goldfussi to an animal, which in the 
first Livraison of the same work he had designated as Lophiodon goldfussi, and de- 
scribes Chalicothervum antiquum. 
1837. 
Larter, Epovarp A. I. H.—“ Note sur les ossements fossiles des terrains tertiaires de Simorre, 
de Sansan, etc., dans le département du Gers, et sur la décowverte récente d’une machoire 
de singe fossile.”’ Comptes Rendus des Séances de |’Académie des Sciences, 1837, 
T. IV, pp. 85-93. 
Mons. Lartet in his communication (I. c., p. 90) says: ‘‘ The order Edentates was 
represented in our Tertiary fauna by a very large quadruped, of which I am only able 
to deposit in the Museum two or three phalanges and one tooth in very bad condition.”’ 
... ““ M. Cuvier was acquainted with one ungual phalanx of this same edentate which 
had been found upon the banks of the Rhine; and this great naturalist was led by its 
form to refer it to a Pangolin gigantesque, to which, judging from proportions, he as- 
signed a length of twenty-four feet.” 
“ The claws of our edentate are like those of pangolins, cleft in front and without an 
osseous sheath, but they are proportionately higher, less elongated, and slenderer. 
Before speaking of the differences shown by other portions of the extremities, I may 
recall that our animal had at least some molar teeth, a fact which separates it altogether 
from the pangolins.”’ 
““'These teeth,! formed of not very compact ivory, were without roots and entirely 
devoid of enamel. They projected but little from the alveoli, and their method of 
reciprocal action resulted in crushing rather than grinding their food; the result being 
a method of mastication too imperfect to allow us to suppose that the animal was 
herbivorous. For the same reason, if it fed upon flesh, it could only have been the 
carcasses of dead animals; fruits and insects remain to be suggested as its possible 
aliment. The form of the radio-humeral articulation would indicate that our eden- 
tate was able to some extent to execute the movement of supination.” 
“The articulation of the fingers of this edentate reveals a singular anomaly: the 
first phalanx of each finger, placed horizontally in respect to its length, receives the 
1 The teeth described by Lartet were subsequently shown by Filhol and Depéret to be the roots of the 
broken teeth of a mastodon of small size. 
