426 
It would then, M. Cuvier adds, be very difficult to find, in the 
organization of this animal, the causes of his destruction ; and yet, if 
he still exists, where can he be ? or can he have escaped from all the 
researches of huntsmen and naturalists ? 
As far as an opinion can be formed from the few parts of the me- 
galonix which have been found, there seems to exist in M. Cuvier’s 
opinion, almost an identity of form with the megatherium ; but the 
size, he observes, is different, the bones of the megatherium being 
one-third larger than that of the megalonix. This difference of size, 
he thinks, is a real specific difference ; in confirmation of which, he 
observes, that the sheaths of the claws are more complete and long in 
the last phalanges of the megatherium than in those of the megalonix. 
To these, I think, may be added another difference, which M. Cuvier 
does not appear to have noticed. In the megalonix he found a tooth 
resembling the canine tooth of the ai, whilst the megatherium is only 
supplied with grinders. 
There can, therefore, I think, exist no difficulty in agreeing with 
this celebrated naturalist, that these two animals formed two species 
of the same genus, belonging to the family of edentata, and requiring 
to be placed between the sloths and the ant-eaters, but nearer to the 
former than to the latter*. 
Plate XXII. Fig. 1, represents the complete skeleton of the me- 
gatherium, as existing in the Royal Museum at Madrid. 
* Ann. du Mus. Cat. 29, p. 387. 
