The genus Megalonyx, as is well known, owes its name and the discovery of the fossil remains on which it was founded, to the celebrated Jefferson,[[31]] formerly President of the United States. Cuvier, from an examination of a single tooth, and the casts of certain bones of the extremities, especially the terminal ones, determined the ordinal affinities of this remarkable extinct quadruped.[[32]] But while he retained, the name of Megalonyx, and used it in a generic sense, Cuvier offered no characters whereby other fossil remains might be generically either distinguished from, or identified with the Megalonyx Jeffersonii, unless, among such remains there happened to be a tooth, or a claw exactly corresponding with the descriptions and figures in the Ossemens Fossiles; and when, of course, a specific identity, and not merely a generic relationship would be established.
The greater part of Cuvier’s chapter on Megalonyx is devoted to the beautiful and justly celebrated reasoning on the ungueal phalanx, whereby it is proved to belong, not to a gigantic Carnivore of the Lion-kind, as Jefferson supposed, but to the less formidable order of Edentate quadrupeds; and Cuvier, in reference to the tooth,—the part on which alone a generic character could have been founded,—merely observes that it resembles at least as much the teeth of one of the great Armadillos, as it does those of the Sloths.[[33]]
In the last edition of the Rêgne Animal, Cuvier introduces the Megatherium and Megalonyx, between the Sloths and Armadillos; but alludes to no other difference between the two genera than that of size,—“l’autre, le Megalonyx, est un peu moindre.” (p. 226.) Some systematic naturalists, as Desmarest, and Fischer, have, therefore, suppressed the genus, and made the Megalonyx a species of Megatherium under the name of Megatherium Jeffersonii. The dental characters of the genus Megatherium are laid down by Fischer[[34]] as follows:—“Dent. prim, et lan. ⁰⁄₀., molar es ⁴⁄₄⁴⁄₄, obducti, tritores, coronide nunc planâ transversim sulcatâ nunc medio excavatâ marginibus prominulis.” That Megalonyx had the same number of molares as Megatherium, (supposing that number in the Megathere to be correctly stated, which it is not,) is here assumed from analogy, for neither Jefferson, Wistar, nor Cuvier,—the authorities for Megalonyx quoted by Fischer—possessed other means of knowing the dentition of that animal than were afforded by the fragment of a single tooth.
Now the almost entire lower jaw about to be described offers, in so far as respects the general form and structure of the teeth, the same kind and degree of correspondence with the Megatherium, as does the Megalonyx Jeffersonii of Cuvier: and, what is only probable in that species, is here certain, viz., an agreement with the Megatherium in the class, viz. molares, to which the teeth exclusively belong. The question, therefore, on which I find myself, in the outset, called upon to come to a decision is, as to the preference of the mode of viewing the subject of the generic relationship of the Megalonyx adopted by Desmarest, Fischer, &c., or of that, on which Cuvier, and after him Dr. Harlan, have practically acted: whether, in short, the genus Megatherium is to rest upon the more comprehensive characters of kind and general structure of the teeth, or upon the more restricted ones, of form and such modifications in the disposition and proportions of the component textures of the tooth, as give rise to the characteristic appearances of the triturating surface of the crown.
With respect to existing Mammalia, most naturalists of the present day seem to be unanimous as to the convenience at least of founding a generic or subgeneric distinction on well-marked modifications in the form and structure of the teeth, although they may correspond in number and kind, in proof of which it needs only to peruse the pages of a Systema Mammalium which relate to the distribution of the Rodent Order. According to this mode of viewing the logical abstractions under which species are grouped together, the extinct Edentate Mammal discovered by Jefferson must be referred to a genus distinct from Megatherium, and for which the term Megalonyx should be retained. This will be sufficiently evident by comparing the descriptions given by Cuvier of one of the teeth of the Megalonyx Jeffersonii, and by Dr. Harlan of a tooth of his Megalonyx laqueatus, with those of the Megatherium which have been published by Mr. Clift. The fragment of the molar tooth of the Megalonyx Jeffersonii, described and figured in the Ossemens Fossiles, seems to have been implanted in the jaw, like the teeth of the Megatherium, by a simple hollow base similar in form and size to the protruded crown: its structure Cuvier describes as consisting of a central cylinder of bone enveloped in a sheath of enamel.[[35]] The transverse section of this tooth presents an irregular elliptical form, the external contour being gently and uniformly convex, the internal one, undulating; convex in the middle, and slightly concave on each side, arising from the tooth being traversed longitudinally on its inner side by two wide and shallow depressions.
The imperfect tooth of the species called by Dr. Harlan Megalonyx laqueatus, and of which a cast was presented by that able and industrious naturalist to the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, resembles in general form, and especially in the characteristic double longitudinal groove on the inner side, the tooth of the Megalonyx Jeffersonii. It is thus described by Dr. Harlan:
“The fractured molar tooth appears to have belonged to the inferior maxilla on the right side; the crown is destroyed; a part of the cavity of the root remains. The body is compressed transversely, and presents a double curvature, which renders its anterior and exterior aspects slightly convex; the posterior and interior gently concave; these surfaces are all uniform, with the exception of the interior or mesial aspect, which presents a longitudinal rib or ridge, one-half the thickness of the long diameter of the tooth; with a broad, not profound longitudinal groove or channel along each of its borders. It is from this resemblance to a portion of a fluted column, that the animal takes its specific appellation (Megx. laqueatus).
“The crown would resemble an irregular ellipsis widest at the anterior portion. The tooth consists of a central pillar of bone surrounded with enamel, the former of a dead white, the latter of a ferruginous brown colour: the transverse diameter is more than two-thirds less than its length, whilst that of Megx. Jeffersonii is only one-third less—the antero-posterior diameter is one-half its length in the former, and two-thirds less in the latter. The proportions of this tooth are consequently totally at variance with that of its kindred species.” [Vide Pl. [XII]. fig. 7, 8, 9.][[36]]
Dr. Harlan describes also two claws of the fore-foot, a radius, humerus, scapula, one rib, an os calcis, a metacarpal bone, certain vertebræ, a femur, and tibia, of the same Megalonyx; these parts of the skeleton, together with the tooth, which so fortunately served to establish the generic relationship of the species with the Megalonyx of Jefferson and Cuvier, were discovered in Big-bone-cave, Tennessee, United States.
Dr. Harlan does not enter into the question of the generic characters of Megalonyx, but it would seem that he felt them to rest not entirely on dental modifications, for he observes that “a minute examination of the tooth and knee-joint renders it not improbable, supposing the last named character to be peculiar to it, that if the whole frame should hereafter be discovered, it may even claim a generic distinction, in which case, either Aulaxodon, or Pleurodon, would not be an inappropriate name.”[[37]]