(Vol. vii., p. 590.)
Is not the cast of a skeleton in the British Museum, recently alluded to by
A FOREIGN SURGEON, and which is labelled _Megatherium Americanum_ Blume.,
better known to English naturalists by its more correct designation of
_Mylodon robustus_ Owen; and if so, why is the proper appellation not
painted on the label? If that had been done, _A Foreign Surgeon_ would not
have fallen into the error of confounding the remains of two distinctly
different animals.
Might I beg leave to add, for the information of your correspondent, that
no British naturalist "of any mark or likelihood," has ever assumed that
(though undoubtedly sloths) either the _Mylodon_, _Scelidotherium_, or
_Megatherium_, were climbers. Indeed, the whole osseous structure of those
animals proves that they were formed to uprend the trees that gave them
sustenance. By no other hypothesis can we intelligibly account for the
immense expanse of pelvis, the great bulk of hind-legs, the solid tail, the
massive anterior limbs furnished with such powerful claws, and the
extraordinary large spinal chord--all these the characteristic features of
the _Mylodon_.
Whether there were palms or not at the period of the telluric formation, I
cannot undertake to say; but as A FOREIGN SURGEON assumes that a palm is an
exogenous tree (!), I am induced to suspect that his acquaintance with
geology may be equally as limited as his knowledge of botany. Besides, what
can he mean by speaking of a sloth "the size of a large bear?" Why, the
_Mylodon_ must have been larger than a rhinoceros or hippopotamus. The
veriest tyro in natural history would see that at the first glance of the
massive skeleton.
It is a painful and ungracious task to have to pen these observations,
especially, too, in the case of a stranger. But "N. & Q." must not be made
a channel for erroneous statements, and we "natives and to the manner born"
must be allowed to know best what is in our own museums.