SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES. 
No. 1. 
I 
Page .10, line 11.— “ The removal of the Sloth from the Brut a to 
the Primates .” 
I have omitted to mention that both Linneus and M. de Blainvillc 
place the sloth with the Primates : the opinion of Linneus, founded on 
its pectoral mammae, is only valuable as far as that character is con¬ 
cerned ; while the testimony of De Blainville, accompanied as it is by a 
flood of evidence, founded on the careful investigations of that most 
able comparative anatomist, is most important evidence in favor of 
the view I have taken. De Blainville’s opinion on this subject was 
published in his ‘ Prodrome d’une Nouvelle Zooclassie,’ in 1816, and 
republished in his ‘ Osteographie,’ in 1840. It is cited by Professor 
Owen, in his description of Mylodon,* “ Ce sont des Primates :—Par 
l’etat complet de l’avant-bras ; la rotondite de la tete du radius ; la mo¬ 
bility du carpe sur l’avant-bras. Par l’etat egalement complet de la 
jambe dans ses deux os ; la grand mobilite du tarse sur les os de la jambe. 
Par la forme generale du tronc, presque sans queue, large et deprime 
plutot que comprime a la poitrine :—par la largeur du bassein.” — 4 Os¬ 
teographie de ParesseuxJ 4to. p. 58. That Professor Owen, while admit¬ 
ting the validity of these characters, denies the inference De Blainville 
has drawn from them, will be seen on a reference to Note 3. 
* Description of the Skeleton of an extinct gigantic Sloth, By Richakd Owen, E.R.S, 
&c. London: Van Voorst. 1842, 
