34 PROFESSOR HUXLEY ON THE OSTEOLOGY OF THE GENUS GLYPTODON. 
backwards ; and therefore some of the fragments may be referred to the left, and some 
to the right side From the preceding comparisons it follows that the fossil scutes are 
similar to those of the thoracic and pelvic shields of different living Armadillos, although 
they differ from them in many respects. But if objections should still be raised to regard- 
ing the animal which bore the fossil armour as an Armadillo (Giirtelthier), two replies 
may be made. In the first place, neither the entire skeleton nor the perfect shell of 
the animal have been obtained. Of the skeleton, the vertebral column, the ribs, and 
sternum are wanting — or exactly those parts which the moveable zones (Gurtel) would 
have covered. Secondly, the moveable zones themselves, although among the charac- 
teristic features of the Armadillos, are of less importance than was formerly believed, 
as Azara has already pointed out.” 
The state of the bones indicated that they appertained to a young animal, the epi- 
physes being distinct. Those described belonging to the fore limb are, a part of the 
scapula (?), the distal end of the left humerus, the radius and ulna, nearly perfect, and 
eighteen bones of the fore foot. Of the latter, five belonged to the carpus, of which the 
three proximal are interpreted by D’Alton as the semilunare (Mondbein), cuneiforme 
(das dreieckige Bein), and pisi forme (Erbsenbein). I shall endeavour to show, in the 
course of my description of the specimen which forms the subject of this memoir, that 
the determinations of the semilunare and cuneiforme are perfectly correct, but that the 
so-called pisiforme is not rightly named. The distal bones are, according to D’Alton’s 
interpretation, which I can fully confirm, the magnum and the unciforme. 
Two entire metacarpal bones, and fragments of another, are considered by the author 
of the memoir to correspond with the third, fourth, and fifth of an ordinary five-toed 
fore foot ; but they are really the second, third, and fourth, Professor D’Alton having 
taken the surface of the cuneiform, which articulates with the fifth metacarpal, for the 
surface of articulation with the pisiform. The phalanges of the digits belonging to these 
metacarpal bones, and three of their sesamoid bones, are carefully described and figured. 
The resemblances of the bones of the forearm with those of the existing Armadillos 
are pointed out, especial weight being laid upon the extension of the cuneiform round 
the unciform, and its articulation with what D’Alton supposes to be the fifth meta- 
carpal ; and certain analogies of the fore foot with that of the mole are indicated. 
A fragment of the distal end of a leg-bone, the seven tarsal bones, the four outer 
metatarsal bones ; their digits, except the ungual phalanges ; and some other bones of 
the hind foot, in a more or less fragmentary state, are described and figured, and atten- 
tion is drawn to the remarkably short and strong character of the foot. 
In conclusion B’Alton remarks, “Though, as I have endeavoured to show above, 
there is a certain agreement between the manus of the fossil animal and that of the 
Armadillos, yet the foot shows us no greater similarity than may be observed between 
it and many other five-toed animals. Hence the osteology of the primeval animal does 
not afford a sufficient confirmation of the view which we derived from the consideration 
of the carapace, viz. that the bones, together with the fragments of dermal armour. 
